>> I'M STEVE KOTCHKO.
WELCOME TO ANOTHER EDITION OF "ON THE RECORD."
FIRST, A LOOK AT THIS WEEK'S STATE HEADLINES:
SENATOR CHRISTOPHER DODD, ALREADY FACING SCRUTINY OVER HIS
PERSONAL FINANCES, GETS CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE A-I-G
EXECUTIVE BONUS CONTROVERSY.
SENATOR DODD IS THE GUEST TODAY IN OUR NEWSMAKER SEGMENT.
>> CAN A NEW TECHNOLOGY HELP IDENTIFY GUNS USED IN SHOOTING
CRIMES?
GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES SAY "YES", CONNECTICUT GUNMAKERS SAY
"NO."
WE'LL DISCUSS THE ISSUE IN OUR REPORTERS ROUNDTABLE.
>>> STATE CAPITOL POLICE ARREST A NEW BRITAIN MAN FOR
ALLEGEDLY THREATENING TWO STATE LAWMAKERS.
AND GOVERNOR RELL SAYS, IN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS, THE
STATE CANNOT AFFORD TO BUILD A NEW HOSPITAL FOR THE UCONN
HEALTH CENTER.
THOSE ARE THE HEADLINES.
PLEASE STAY WITH US.

AND JOINING ME TODAY IS CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC SENATOR
CHRISTOPHER DODD.
SENATOR DODD, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT ON YOUR PLATE LATELY.
AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SHOW, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT
HIM A LITTLE LATER, YOU'VE FACED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR
MORTGAGES, YOUR VARIOUS REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES.
BUT IT SEEMS THE ISSUE OF THE WEEK THIS WEEK IS AIG AND THOSE
EXECUTIVE BONUSES.
>> RIGHT.
>> YOU ARE IDENTIFIED EARLY IN THE WEEK BY SOME PEOPLE AS THE
PERSON WHO WROTE THE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWED THOSE BONUSES.
YOU SAID THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, AND THAT THERE WERE CHANGES
MADE TO A SECTION THAT YOU WROTE, AND LATER IN THE WEEK, THE
TREASURY SECRETARY TIM GEITHNER SAID HE'LL TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY,
HE'S THE ONE WHO ASKED FOR THOSE CHANGES.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THOSE CHANGES AND HOW THEY ALLOWED THESE
BONUSES TO TAKE PLACE AFTER AIG WAS GIVEN A GOVERNMENT
BAILOUT.
>> CERTAINLY, STEVEN.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME ON THE PROGRAM.
THIS IS -- I LED THE CHARGE OVER A PAST NUMBER OF MONTHS ON
THE WHOLE ISSUE OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION, GOLDEN PARACHUTES,
BONUSES AND THE LIKE AND WROTE A VERY EXTENSIVE AMENDMENT TOO
THE STIMULUS PACKAGE BACK IN FEBRUARY.
AT THE TIME I WROTE IT, THERE WAS NO AWARENESS, KNOWLEDGE
WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE AIG BONUSES WHATSOEVER.
SOME SIX WEEKS AGO.
THAT AMENDMENT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE SENATE, AND WENT         2
TO THAT CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.
IN THAT PROCESS, WE RECEIVED AN INQUIRY, IF YOU WILL, OR
CALLED US, REACHED US FROM THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT SAYING
THEY WANTED TO MAKE SOME TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE AMENDMENT.
I WAS CONCERNED FRANKLY.
THERE WERE THOSE WHO WERE OPPOSED TO THAT AMENDMENT, THOUGHT
IT WAS TOO RESTRICTIVE IN FACT WHEN IT CAME TO EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION, BONUSES AND THE LIKE.
AND SO THEY PROPOSED SOME CHANGES.
TWO OF THEM BASICALLY ONE WHICH I THOUGHT WAS A RATHER GOOD
CHANGE OF IT TIERED THE AMOUNT OF PENALTIES, THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE INVOLVED WHICH MADE SOME SENSE TO ME.
THE SECOND WAS, IT PUT A DATE IN THE MATTER.
THE REASON GIVEN BY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT IS BECAUSE IT TALKED ABOUT A FLOOD OF LAWSUIT THAT
HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER IN THE CONNECTION BETWEEN AIG
AND BONUSES IT SEEMED LIKE A MY INCREASE AMENDMENT AND THE
CONCERN I HAD IS THERE WERE THOSE WHO WANTED TO DROP THE
ENTIRE AMENDMENT ALL OF THE OTHER MATTERS INCLUDED THERE IN.
I AGREED IT TO.
THEY CAME TO US WITH THE IDEA, PUSHED IT, PURSUED IT.
BUT IT SEEMED TO MAKE SOME SENSE.
>> WELL, I THINK SOME PEOPLE WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS FROM THE
OUTSIDE AND SAY, CHRIS DODD SAYS HE DIDN'T SEE THE LOOPHOLE.
THE TREASURY SECRETARY DOESN'T SEE THE LOOPHOLE BUT AIG FOUND
IT AND THEY PAID THEIR EXECUTIVES THESE BONUSES.
>> APPARENTLY THESE NOW WE'RE DISCOVERING OF COURSE GOING
BACK UPON REVIEWING IT THAT THESE CONTRACTS WERE ENTERED INTO
MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO.
OCCASIONALLY IT LOOKS LIKE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK MAY HAVE
BEEN AWARE OF IT, BUT GEITHNER SAYS HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT
AT ALL.
I CERTAINLY ONLY FOUND ABOUT IT LAST WEEK ABOUT THE SAME TIME
AS THE PUBLIC DID.
HAD I KNOWN, STEVE, AT THE TIME THIS WAS CONNECTED IN ANY WAY
TO AIG AND BONUSES I NEVER WOULD HAVE AGREED TO THAT DATE AT
ALL WHATSOEVER.
IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME AS A TECHNICAL MATTER TO AVOID, AS I
SAID A FLOOD OF LAWSUITS THAT'S REASON IT WAS PROPOSED.
>> I THINK THE PUBLIC IS ALSO ASKING HERE, LOOK, THIS IS A
GOVERNMENT BAILOUT.
THIS IS A COMPANY THAT WAS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE, GOING TO GO
UNDER, AND THE GOVERNMENT CAME IN, THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION
GOING INTO THIS ADMINISTRATION, SAID OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO
BAIL YOU OUT.
BUT I THINK THE PUBLIC MAY BE ASKING, IF THE GOVERNMENT -- IF
TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO BAIL A COMPANY OUT, WHY SHOULDN'T THAT
COMPANY BE PLAYING BY THE GOVERNMENT'S RULES AS TO WHAT IS
GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT MONEY, INCLUDING NO BONUSES.
I MEAN, IF THIS -- LET ME JUST ASK THIS:                           3
IF THIS WENT TO BANKRUPTCY COURT, A BANKRUPTCY COURT WOULD
PROBABLY THROW ALL OF THESE CONTRACTS OUT THE WINDOW IS SAY
WE'RE GOING TO START FROM SCRATCH BECAUSE YOU'RE IN
BANKRUPTCY.
SO WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT IN ESSENCE TREADING SO LIGHTLY WITH
THESE COMPANIES THAT IT IS BAILING OUT?
>> WELL, VERY GOOD QUESTION, HENCE WHY DID I WRITE THE
AMENDMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE REASON WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AT ALL IS
BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT WAS INCLUDED IN THE BILL.
HAD I NOT WRITTEN THAT, AND IN FACT I COULDN'T GET A
CO-SPONSOR ON THE AMENDMENT, BY THE WAY.
I KNEW THERE WERE PEOPLE
CRITICAL OF IT.
I FELT JUST AS STRONGLY.
I DIDN'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE.
>> DO YOU THINK YOU GAVE IN TOO EASILY HERE?
>> WELL, NO.
IF I HAD KNOWN THEN WHAT I KNOW NOW ABOUT ALL OF THIS
OBVIOUSLY I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO IT.
BUT IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME AS A TECHNICAL MATTER BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, THEIR
LEGAL DEPARTMENT SAYING, THIS WAS ONLY FOR THAT PURPOSE.
HAD THERE BEEN SUGGESTION, STEVE WHATSOEVER --
BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU TOTALLY.
IN FACT IT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE PROBABLY NEED SOMETHING LIKE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WHERE SOMEBODY, AS WE DID
WITH THE THRIFT INDUSTRY YEARS AGO, WHERE YOU BRING THESE
MATTERS IN,
INSTEAD OF PUMPING CAPITAL INTO THEM DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY
HOPING SOMEHOW THEY'LL GET BACK ON THEIR FEET AGAIN TO DEAL WITH IT DIFFERENTLY.
>> YOU'RE A WASHINGTON VETERAN.
YOU KNOW HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS DOWN THERE THAT PEOPLE WRITE
STUFF INTO BILLS AND PEOPLE FINESSE THINGS.
DO YOU THINK THAT YOU, YOUR STAFF, THE BANKING COMMITTEE
SHOULD HAVE LOOKED MORE CLOSELY WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION WAS
SAYING WE NEED TO MAKE THIS CHANGE?
>> WELL, AGAIN --
>> AND BACKING AWAY FROM YOUR ORIGINAL POSITION WHICH YOU
SAID WAS MUCH STRONGER IN THIS LANGUAGE.
>> WELL, AGAIN, IT IS A RATHER COMPREHENSIVE BILL.
IT'S NOT A ONE OR
TWO-LINE AMENDMENT.
IT WAS 11 PAGES LONG COVERING A WHOLE HOST OF ACTIVITIES TO
TRY TO SHUT DOWN EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED.
I DON'T HAVE 20/20 HINDSIGHT REGRETFULLY, AND HAD THERE BEEN
ANY SUGGESTION TO ME OR ANYONE ON MY STAFF THAT THE RATIONALE
FOR THIS REQUEST WAS TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM, I WOULD HAVE
REJECTED OUT OF HAND.
>> OKAY, LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT AIG.
IF THE REPORTS THAT I SEE ARE CORRECT, YOU'RE LIKE THE TOP
RECIPIENT IN TERMS OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AIG OVER            4
THE YEARS.
SOMEONE ESTIMATED $280,000 IN CONTRIBUTIONS OVER THE LAST TWO
DECADES.
DON'T YOU THINK SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AND
SAY, WELL, WITH ALL THAT MONEY THAT CHRIS DODD HAS GOTTEN FOR
HIS CAMPAIGNS OVER THE YEARS, MAYBE HE JUST LOOKED THE OTHER
WAY WHEN THIS LANGUAGE CAME IN, AND AIG WAS ABLE TO TAKE THE
BENEFIT OF IT.
>> WELL, I'M SURE POLITICALLY THERE ARE THOSE WHO WILL MAKE
THAT CASE.
BUT AGAIN, HAD I HAD ANY IDEA WHATSOEVER THAT AIG OR ANY
OTHER CORPORATION WERE SEEKING SOME KIND OF SPECIAL STATUS
HERE, I WOULD HAVE REJECTED IT.
AGAIN, I COME BACK TO THE POINT, THE IRONY IN MANY WAYS IS,
AS THE SOLE AUTHOR OF EXCESSIVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION,
BONUSES, GOLDEN PARACHUTES AND LUXURY ITEMS, I'M THE ONE WHO
WROTE IT AND INSISTED IT BE PART OF THE BILL.
AT SOME POINT SOMEONE MIGHT SUGGEST THIS IS A PERSON WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR AT LEAST PUTTING SOME RESTRAINTS ON ALL OF
THIS, AND NOW BEING HIGHLY CRITICIZED FOR NOT BEING MORE
RESTRICTIVE IN THE PROCESS.
WHERE WERE THE OTHERS.
WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE ELSE STAND UP AND OFFER WITH ME THIS
EFFORT HERE.
IT SEEMS TO ME, AT SOME POINT SOMEONE HAS TO SAY,
I'M NOT NEGOTIATING WITH MYSELF, I DIDN'T OFFER ALL OF THAT,
STAND UP AND MAKE THE ONLY SPEECH ABOUT IT ON THE FLOOR OF
THE SENATE, AND THEN TWO OR THREE DAYS LATER, DECIDE I WAS
GOING TO MODIFY MY OWN IDEAS HAD I NOT BEEN PURSUED BY OTHERS
SEEKING A CHANGE IN IT, FOR REASONS WE NOW UNDERSTAND.

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR CAMPAIGN FOR
PRESIDENT.
YOU WERE CAMPAIGNING FOR PRESIDENT IN PARTS OF 2007 AND 2008.
DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, IT SEEMS THAT THE DISASTER,
ECONOMIC DISASTER THAT WE'RE NOW IN WAS SETTING UP.
YOU HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED FOR SPENDING TIME AWAY FROM CONGRESS
TO CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT.
CERTAINLY EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SEEK HIGHER OFFICE.
BUT DO YOU THINK THAT IF YOU HAD BEEN ABLE TO SPEND MORE TIME
IN WASHINGTON WORKING WITH YOUR COMMITTEE -- I'M NOT GOING TO
SAY THAT CHRIS DODD SINGLE-HANDEDLY COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE
ECONOMIC MESS THAT WE'RE IN.
>> THANK YOU.
>> BUT IN TERMS OF DUE DILIGENCE, DO YOU THINK THAT YOU MIGHT
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PREVENT SOME OF THESE PROBLEM, FORESEE THEM
AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM AS HEAD OF THE BANKING COMMITTEE.
>> I BECAME HEAD IN JANUARY OF 2007.
MY CAMPAIGN ENDED VERY QUICKLY IN IOWA IN JANUARY OF 2008.            5
>> WELL, STILL, A YEAR.
>> BUT LET ME SUGGEST TO YOU HERE, THIS PROBLEM DIDN'T BEGIN
IN 2007.
IT BEGAN YEARS AGO, BACK WHEN THERE WAS A LACK OF REGULATION,
A LACK OF COPS ON THE BEAT.
EVEN WHEN YOU HAD REGULATION, NOT DOING THE JOB.
I TAKE OVER THE COMMITTEE, I HAD 82 HEARINGS DURING THAT
PERIOD OF 2007 TO 2008, IN WHICH WE SPENT MORE THAN A THIRD
OF OUR TIME ON THE FORECLOSURE ISSUE ON WHAT WAS THE CRISIS,
WHERE DID IT COME FROM.
AND AT THE TIME YOU MAY RECALL THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION
WAS DENYING THERE WAS ANY PROBLEM WHATSOEVER, IT WAS ONLY A
MINOR BUBBLE THAT WAS GOING TO GO AWAY.
WE PURSUED THOSE ISSUES AGGRESSIVELY INCLUDING OFFERING MAJOR
LEGISLATION, 17 DIFFERENT BILLS DEALING --  COMING OUT OF THE
BANKING COMMITTEE, THE MAJOR ONES DEALING WITH THE HOUSING
CRISIS AT THE TIME.
NOW, ALSO THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE CAMPAIGNING FOR THE
PRESIDENCY FROM THIS STATE.
I'M NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO WAS OUT THERE DOING IT.
IF YOU DON'T WIN OBVIOUSLY, THAT CRITICISM TAKES ON A GREATER
PORTIONALITY.
BUT MY JOB I DID ON THAT COMMITTEE.
I WORKED HARD AT IT, PRODUCED LEGISLATION SUCCESSFULLY AS
WELL.
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
LET'S TURN TO THE MORTGAGE PROBLEM WHICH SEEMED TO BE THE
THING THAT PUT YOU IN THE  JACKPOT TO BEGIN WITH HERE IN
TERMS OF CONTROVERSIES, PLURAL.
THIS COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE THAT YOU GOT, THE CRITICISM IS THAT
YOU GOT A VIP RATE, YOU WERE PART OF THIS VIP PROGRAM.
TODAY AS A MATTER OF FACT THERE IS A NEWSPAPER STORY THAT
SAYS SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS IN THIS CASE REVEAL THAT
COUNTRYWIDE EXECUTIVES HAD TO GIVE A MANUAL OVERRIDE OF THEIR
COMPUTERIZED MORTGAGE SYSTEM TO GIVE PEOPLE LIKE YOU ON THAT
VIP LIST A BETTER BREAK.
WHAT ABOUT THAT?
HOW DO YOU ANSWER THAT?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL THE REPORTS OUT IS FROM REPUBLICAN
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE SO LET'S CONSIDER THE SOURCE.
>> YOU THINK IT IS POLITICAL.
>> CLEARLY IT IS.
AND SECONDLY THE DOCUMENTS THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE THE
ONES THAT I INCLUDED AND REVEALED EARLIER.
THIS YEAR WE PLACED OUT THOSE DOCUMENTS.
>> APPARENTLY THE REPORTERS WHO COVERED THAT STORY ON THE
PRINT SIDE THAT DAY DIDN'T FIND IT, BUT THEN AGAIN YOU ONLY
ALLOWED THEM TO LOOK AT THOSE MATERIALS FOR A FEW HOURS.
THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE COPIES OF THAT.
>> THEY COULD HAVE STAYED AS LONG AS THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT           6
THEM.
BUT LET'S GET TO THE QUESTION.
THERE IS NOTHING NEW ABOUT THEM.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE THE CHARGES WERE INITIALLY.
THOSE ARE INTERNAL DOCUMENTS FROM COUNTRYWIDE.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM AND OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT
THEM TODAY THAN WE DID THEN.
LET ME KEEP ON REPEAT WHAT I SAID BACK THEN AND WILL KEEP
REPEATING.
WE RECEIVED MARKET RATES.
MARKET RATES WHICH WERE AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
THE RATES WE RECEIVED WERE THE LOWEST RATES.
THEY WERE BEING OFFERED IN ALMOST 50 YEARS TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC IN THE LATE SPRING OF 2003.
WE DID WHAT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DID IN THIS COUNTRY.
WE WENT OUT AND REFINANCED OUR HOME MORTGAGES.
THOSE WERE PUBLICLY ADVERTISED IN NEWSPAPER RATES THAT WE
RECEIVED.
THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THEM AT ALL.
WE ONLY DEALT WITH LOAN OFFICERS.
IF ANYONE AT COUNTRYWIDE HAD EVER SUGGESTED TO ME THAT WE
WERE GET SOMETHING SWEETHEART DEAL OR SPECIAL DEAL, WE WOULD
ARE REJECTED THAT OUT OF HAND.
I'M NOT ABOUT TO GET INTO AN ARRANGEMENT WITH HOME MORTGAGES
WITH A COMPANY OFFERING SOME KIND OF SPECIAL TREATMENT AND
SPECIAL DEAL.
>> I ASKED YOU ABOUT I ONCE BEFORE, YOU WERE TOLD THAT YOU
WERE GOING BE PART OF A VIP PROGRAM.
YOU ADMITTED THAT.
>> YEAH.
>> WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IN THIS DAY AND AGE, WHEN
POLITICIANS ARE UNDER SCRUTINY AS YOU WELL KNOW THIS WEEK AND
PERHAPS FOR THE LAST YEAR, WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS TO YOU, WE'RE
GOING TO PUT YOU IN A VIP PROGRAM, SHOULDN'T AN ALARM BELL GO
OFF.
>> ABSOLUTELY AND IT DID.
>> SHOULDN'T YOU SAY IF THIS IS JUST A PROMOTION AND I'M JUST
GETTING A PERK BECAUSE I'M A COUNTRYWIDE CUSTOMER, WHICH IS
WHAT YOU SAY HAPPENED, GIVE IT TO ME IN WRITING, SPELL IT OUT
FOR ME BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS LATER
THAT I GOT SOME KIND OF VIP TREATMENT.
WHY DIDN'T THAT HAPPEN?
>> WE DID ASK THE QUESTION.
ASKED WHAT IS THIS VIP PROGRAM.
AND THE ANSWER WE WERE GIVEN IS THAT THIS WAS NOTHING MORE
THAN ENHANCED CUSTOMER SERVICE.
WE WERE AN EXISTING CUSTOMER.
>> RIGHT, BUT YOU DIDN'T GET IT IN WRITING.
DIDN'T YOU THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE QUESTIONED ABOUT IT AT
SOME POINT?                                                           7
>> WE DISCOVERED THAT LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE APPARENTLY ARE IN A VIP PROGRAM.
THIS IS MORE OF A PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITY, AND THAT'S WHAT WE
PURSUED AND ASKED THE QUESTION.  HAD WE NOT ASKED THE
QUESTION AT ALL, AND AGAIN 20/20 HINDSIGHT KNOWING WHAT HAS
SINCE UNFOLDED AND THE ACCUSATIONS, WE MIGHT HAVE ASKED 20
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
BUT WHEN THE QUESTION WAS RAISED, WE RAISED THE QUESTION AND
THEY SAID IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.
THE IDEA THAT I WOULD ALLOW MYSELF AT ALL, STEVE, AFTER THIS
MANY YEARS THAT I WOULD SIT AND GET A SWEETHEART DEAL ON A
MORTGAGE IS SOMETHING THAT I JUST REJECT OUT OF HAND AND
OFFENDED BY IT.
BUT NONETHELESS THE ACCUSATIONS WERE MADE, WE RESPONDED TO
IT, COOPERATED WITH THOSE SEEKING INFORMATION.
BUT AGAIN I EMPHASIZE TO YOU, THEY WERE MARKET RATES.
THE NEWSPAPERS WERE ADVERTISING THESE RATES.
IN FACT COUNTRYWIDE, THE VERY WEEK THAT WE CLOSED ON THE
REFINANCING OF THE MORTGAGE, ADVERTISED A RATE PUBLICLY THAT
WAS LESS THAN THE ONE WE RECEIVED FOR THE TYPE OF MORTGAGE.
I HOPE PEOPLE LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW
THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT, LET ME ASK YOU.
AND I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE, THAT YOUR POLL RATINGS
LATELY HAVE NOT BEEN GREAT.
AND I KNOW THAT YOU SAY THAT THE POLL NUMBERS GO UP AND DOWN.
IT IS A BAD ECONOMY WE'RE IN AND MAYBE PEOPLE TAKE THAT OUT
ON POLITICIANS, ALL TRUE.
BUT IN ONE OF THOSE QUINNIPIAC POLLS THIS SPRING, THERE WAS A
QUESTION ASKED, DO YOU THINK THAT OR DO YOU TRUST, DO YOU
FEEL SENATOR DODD IS A PERSON OF INTEGRITY AND THAT HE'S
TRUSTWORTHY.
AND ONLY 41% OF PEOPLE SAID YES.
THE IMPRESSION IS LEFT THAT THESE CONTROVERSIES AND THE
EXPLAINING THAT YOU HAVE DONE, HAVE HAD TO DO SOMEHOW HAS
ERODED PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.
TO ME, THAT IS MORE SERIOUS THAN JUST PEOPLE SAYING, WELL, A
LITTLE CRANKY RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T THINK ANY OF OUR BOYS IN
WASHINGTON ARE DOING A GOD JOB.
AREN'T YOU WORRIED ABOUT THAT THE.
>> OF COURSE I AM.
IT WOULD BE FOOLISH TO SAY OTHERWISE.
AND OBVIOUSLY IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.
OVER THE LAST ALMOST 30 YEARS OF REPRESENTING THE STATE AND
IN THE SENATE, I HAVE ENJOYED THE CONFIDENCE AND THE TRUST OF
THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE.
I HAVE BEEN THROUGH 8 ELECTIONS.
>> HOW DO YOU GET BACK THE --
>> YOU DO YOUR JOB.
OFFERING THE LANGUAGE TO DEAL WITH EXECUTIVE BONUSES AND THE          8
LIKE IS THE KIND OF ACTIVITY THAT I'LL STAY ENGAGED IN WE
HAVE LEGISLATION COMING UP WITH CREDIT CARDS AND THE PREDATOR
LANDING PRACTICES.
MODERNIZING THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS DEALING WITH FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
DOING MY JOB IS THE ONLY WAY THAT I KNOW HOW TO RESTORE THAT
CONFIDENCE.
OBVIOUSLY I RECEIVED A DELUGE OF CRITICAL PRESS OVER THE LAST
NUMBER OF MONTHS AND THAT CERTAINLY HAS HURT.
HURT PERSONALLY, I UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT CONFIDENCE.
>> YOU'RE A TARGET NOW.
THE REPUBLICANS LOOK AT YOU AS THE MOST VULNERABLE DEMOCRATIC
SENATOR.
YOU KNOW IT IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE, NOT BETTER.
>> WELL, I THINK PEOPLE CAN ALSO SEE, THEY ARE NOT FOOLISH IN
THAT REGARD.
AND THEY UNDERSTAND POLITICS AS WELL.
IN A TIME LIKE THIS WHEN YOU'RE LOSING 20,000 JOBS A DAY,
10,000 HOMES A DAY ARE GOING INTO FORECLOSURE, THINK LAST
THING PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT IS MY JOB.
THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT I'M WORRIED ABOUT THEIR
JOB AND DOING MY JOB.
AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE GOT TO CONCENTRATE ON.
AND I INTEND TO DO THAT OVER THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS TO
DO MY JOB.
AT THE END THERE WILL BE AN  ELECTION AND PEOPLE MAKE A
DECISION, AND I'LL RESPECT THAT DECISION.
AND THE ONLY WAY THAT I KNOW HOW TO DO THIS, THE BEST
POLITICS BEING IS DO THE JOB THAT YOU WERE GIVEN.
THE CAMPAIGN IS NOW A PERMANENT CAMPAIGN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M A TARGET OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE.
WHEN YOU GET DICK CHENEY AND KARL ROVE AND RUSH LIMBAUGH IN
ONE DAY GOING AFTER YOU, YOU GET IN KIND OF IDEA THAT YOU'RE
IN THE CROSS HAIRS.
BUT I THINK PEOPLE CAN SEE THROUGH POLITICS AND THEY WANT TO
SEE ME GET BACK TO REPUTATION I'VE HAD WORKING ON THEIR
BEHALF EVERY SINGLE DAY AND I INTEND TO DO THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT, YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE SAID ALREADY THAT YOU
INTEND TO RUN FOR REELECTION NEXT YEAR.
WHAT IF THINGS DON'T GET BETTER WITH THESE NUMBERS.
WHAT IF THE INTENSITY OF THIS STAYS WHERE IT IS, YOU'RE
HAVING PROBLEMS GETTING YOUR POLL NUMBERS BACK UP, PEOPLE IN
THE PARTY COME TO YOU AND SAY CHRIS, WE'RE A LITTLE WORRIED.
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE THE SENATE SEAT.
ASIDE FROM ILLNESS OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, IS THERE
ANYTHING THAT COULD HAPPEN OR ANYONE COULD PERSUADE YOU THAT
MAYBE IT WASN'T A GOOD IDEA TO STAND FOR REELECTION, THAT             9
MAYBE IT WOULD BE BETTER TO STEP ASIDE AND LET ANOTHER
DEMOCRAT WITH A CLEAN SLATE SO TO SPEAK TAKE THAT NOMINATION.
>> WELL, MY INTENTION TO THE SEEK REELECTION AND THAT'S WHERE
WE ARE TODAY AND MOVING FORWARD.
AND ORGANIZING AS SUCH AND PLANNING AS SUCH ON THE SIDE, I'M
NOT GOING OF DETRACT FROM THE JOB THAT I HAVE TO DO AS A
SENATOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE TO WORK ON
THEIR BEHALF.
BUT WHAT I'M DOING TODAY AND DOING TOMORROW HERE IN THE
STATE, BACK EVERY WEEK, AS WELL AS MY RESPONSIBILITIES IN
WASHINGTON.
THE HYPOTHETICALS OF WHAT HAPPENS DOWN THE ROAD I CAN'T
PREDICT FOR YOU.
I CAN PREDICT THIS MUCH:
I INTEND TO BE A CANDIDATE.
I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE SUPPORT OF PEOPLE IN MY PARTY,
STANDING WITH ME AT THIS HOUR.
THEY REALIZE A LOT OF THIS IS POLITICS, AND WHAT'S HAPPENING,
WHERE IT IS COMING FROM.
IT STARTED VERY EARLY, BUT I SUSPECT AS WELL THAT PEOPLE
DON'T WANT TO SEE PEOPLE ENGAGING ONLY IN POLITICS.
THEY WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT EVERYONE IS TAKING SERIOUSLY
THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE IN, THE MOST SERIOUS SINCE THE GREAT
DEPRESSION.
THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE IN THE COMING DAYS COULD LARGELY
DETERMINE, STEVE, THE KIND OF COUNTRY THIS IS IN THE 21ST
CENTURY.
AND TO MAKE IT JUST A POLITICAL MATTER AND NOT A SUBSTANTIVE
ONE.
WE NEED TO BE WORKING TOGETHER, THAT'S MY INTENTION.
I WORK WITH THE REPUBLICANS AND THE DEMOCRATS ON MY COMMITTEE
TO TRY TO GET THE BEST RESULTS THAT WE CAN FOR THE COUNTRY
AND FOR THE STATE AND THAT'S MY PLAN FOR THE COMING WEEKS AND
MONTHS.
>> WE HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT BUT DOES THAT SAY THAT YOU'RE IN
THIS UNTIL THE END NO MATTER WHAT, YOU'RE GOING TO GO DOWN
WITH THE SHIP OR YOU WOULD BE AT LEAST, YOU WOULD LISTEN IF
PARTY MEMBERS SAID, YOU'RE HURTING HERE, WE HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING ELSE.
>> I'M IN THIS, IN THIS CAMPAIGN ALTHOUGH THE CAMPAIGN IS A
SECONDARY CONSIDERATION FOR ME RIGHT NOW.
THERE IS A SEASON FOR POLITICS AND A SEASON FOR CAMPAIGNING.
MY VIEW WE'RE NOT IN THAT YET.
OTHERS MAY SEE IT AS SUCH BUT I DON'T.
>> BUT YOU'RE IN IT UNTIL THE END.
>> THAT'S MY INTENTION, STEVE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> SENATOR, THANKS FOR BEING WITH US.
>> THANK YOU, STEVE.
>> WE'LL BE BACK IN A MOMENT WITH OUR REPORTERS ROUND TABLE.         10
>> MY GUEST THIS WEEK IN OUR REPORTERS ROUND TABLE ARE
CHRISTINE STUART FROM CTNEWSJUNKIE.COM, AND PAUL HUGHES FROM THE
WATERBURY REPUBLICAN AMERICAN NEWSPAPER.
WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BUDGETS AND TAXES IN THIS SEGMENT
FOR A WHILE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS.
LET'S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING CALLED MICROSTAMPING WHICH HAS TO
DO WITH I GUESS TRYING TO PUT A FINGERPRINT ON WEAPONS.
CAN ONE OF YOU EXPLAIN HOW THIS WORKS.
>> BASICALLY WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IS, BASICALLY A NEW
KIND OF FIRING PIN THAT WOULD BASICALLY BE MICROSTAMPED SO
WHEN IT -- LASERS ENGRAVED BASICALLY WOULD HAVE THE MAKE,
MODEL, AND SERIAL NUMBER OF SEMI AUTOMATIC PISTOL, AND WHEN A
BULLET IS FIRED THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE ON THE CASING SO
THAT WHEN POLICE GO A CRIME SCENE AND THEY FIND THE CASING,
THEY CAN AT LEAST TRACE IT BACK TO A PARTICULAR WEAPON.
>> CHRISTINE, THIS ISN'T THE FIRST YEAR THIS HAS COME UP.
>> IT IS NOT.
THEY DID BRING THIS ISSUE UP LAST YEAR, AND THEY ATTEMPTED TO
GET IT PASSED AND IT DIDN'T MAKE IT -- IT MADE IT PAST THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BUT I DON'T THINK IT MADE IT MUCH FURTHER
THAN THAT ONTO THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.
>> ONE THING I HAVE FOUND INTERESTING HERE WAS, YOU HAD THE
GUN MAKERS AND YOU HAD THE GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES BOTH MAKING
STATEMENTS THAT DAY ABOUT THIS BILL.
AND THEY WERE EXACTLY OPPOSITE IN THEIR CLAIMS.
HOW, LET'S JUST TAKE ONE.
THE GUN MAKERS CLAIM THAT THIS IS NOT EFFECTIVE, THAT
CRIMINALS COULD LITERALLY USE I GUESS A FILE OR EMERY BOARD
TO GET RID OF THIS MICROSTAMP ETCHING AND DEFEAT THE WHOLE
PURPOSE OF THIS QUICKLY AND PEOPLE WHO ARE ADVOCATING IT SAY
THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
>> WELL, WE WERE SORT OF MAKING THE CASE THAT, WELL,
CRIMINALS ARE NOT THAT SMART, THAT THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW THE
WEAPONS VERY WELL, THAT A HANDGUN IS USED IN A CRIME 20 TIMES
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I FORGET WHAT THE NUMBER WAS, AND
THEN IT IS DISPOSED OF.
THE WERE SORT OF DOWNPLAYING THE ARGUMENT THIS IS EASILY
DEFEATED WHICH WE HEARD FROM GUN MANUFACTURERS AND GUN
OWNERS.
>> WE SHOULD SAY CHRISTINE, WE SAY GUN MAKERS WE'RE NOT JUST
TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE COMING IF OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WE
HAVE GUN MAKES IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, CORRECT, AND THEY
ARE SAYING THIS IS -- THEY ARE AGAINST AND IT THEY ACTUALLY
SAY IF YOU DO THIS, THEY COULD ACTUALLY BE JOBS LOST HERE.
>> RIGHT.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THIS
YEAR.
THAT IT IS AN ECONOMIC ARGUMENT THAT THEY ARE SAYING THAT
THEY COULD LOSE JOBS, AND THERE COULD BE JOBS ACTUALLY LOST          11
IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
EVEN THOUGH MANY LIKE COLT ACTUALLY OUTSOURCE THE MAKING OF
THE FIRING PIN.
AND --
>> WHO ARE THE OTHER GUN MAKERS BESIDES COLT THAT SPOKE.
>> MARLIN AND.
>> MOSBERG, STEARNS AND RUGER.
>> AND THEY WERE ALL ALLIED AGAINST THIS AND SAID, DIDN'T
THEY, CHRISTINE, THIS WOULD BE A VERY EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION.
>> THEY SAID IT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE.
THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ADVOCATING FOR IT SAY IT WOULD BE -- IT
WOULD COST BETWEEN $3 AND $6 PER FIRING.
>> WHAT DO THE GUN MAKERS SAY IT WOULD COST?
>> $200 WAS THE FIGURE THAT THEY WERE SAYING IT WOULD ADD TO
THE PRICE OF A FIREARM.
>> NOW, THE WHOLE PURPOSE HERE IS WHAT?
SO THAT WHEN THESE GUN CASINGS ARE INVOLVED IN A SHOOTING,
POLICE SCOOP THEM UP, THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THAT GUN WAS, AND HOW WOULD THEY TRACE
IT BACK?
>> BASICALLY THROUGH RECORDS THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY, I
THINK THE ADVOCATES MADE THE POINT YOU WOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE
TO IDENTIFY THE FIRST OWNER OF THE WEAPON.
YOU COULD GO BACK AND TAKE THE CASE, AND YOU COULD SAY, OKAY,
THIS SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL WAS OWNED BY STEVE KOTCHKO.
>> I DON'T OWN ANY WEAPONS, PAUL.
>> OKAY.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> NEITHER DO I.
BUT I SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
MR. KOTCHKO, WHERE IS YOUR GUN?
AND YOU WOULD SAY, IT IS HERE, OR I SOLD IT, IT GOT STOLEN,
AND UNDER STATE LAW IF IT WAS STOLEN, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO
REPORT IT.
>> WHY ARE GUN MAKERS SO ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THIS.
IT LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE, IF IT WORKS, WOULD BE
SORT OF A COOPERATIVE EVEN WITH POLICE, ET CETERA.
>> I DON'T KNOW.
IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE THEY DO ALREADY TEACH POLICE
DEPARTMENTS THE MARKINGS THAT THEIR UNINTENTIONAL MARKINGS
THAT THEIR TOOLS MAKE DURING THE GUN MAKING PROCESS.
SO THEY DO ALREADY SPEND THE TIME TEACHING THEM ABOUT THAT.
AND THEY SAID THAT THEY ARE NOT DEVELOPING ANY SORT OF
TECHNIQUE SUCH AS THE MICROSTAMPING ON THEIR OWN.
AND THEY SAID -- AND CALIFORNIA PASSED A LAW THAT SAID THAT
THIS HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THEIR STATE IN 2010.
AND THE GUN MANUFACTURERS SAID WE'RE JUST GOING TO ABANDON
THE CALIFORNIA MARKET.
>> HOW CAN YOU ABANDON THE CALIFORNIA MARKET.
>> ONE OF THE LARGEST ECONOMIES IN THE WORLD AND YOU'RE GOING        12
TO --
>> MAYBE YOU COULD SEE THEM PROBABLY TRYING TO GET THE LAW
REPEALED.
THEY ARE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS UNTESTED
TECHNOLOGY, THAT IT'S AS THEY CALL IT SOLE SOURCE THAT THERE
IS --
>> BY SOMEBODY ELSE.
>> BY SOMEBODY ELSE, BUT THE OTHER SIDE SAID THAT THE PEOPLE
WHO PIONEERED THE TECHNOLOGY ARE WILLING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO
USE IT WITHOUT --
>> WITHOUT ROYALTIES.
>> SO DOES THAT SUGGEST THAT THERE IS A SECOND AGENDA HERE OR
A HIDDEN AGENDA ON THE PART OF GUN MAKERS?
>> NO.
BUT I THINK, WELL, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY:
ANY TIME WE'RE DEALING WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT, PEOPLE SEE
ANY SORT OF COMPROMISE AS RETREAT.
AND I THINK THAT WAS VERY EVIDENT FROM THE TESTIMONY AT THE
HEARING.
SO I THINK THAT THAT ASPECT TO IT, ONE THING THAT STRUCK ME
FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE GUN OWNERS AND MANUFACTURERS, THEY
DON'T WANT TO DO IT.
>> CHRISTINE, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THEY WERE USING THE
ECONOMIC ARGUMENT, THAT IT COULD COST JOBS IN CONNECTICUT IF
THAT HAPPENS.
>> RIGHT.
>> DO YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO WORK?
CERTAINLY WE ARE IN A HORRIBLE ECONOMY AND THE LAWMAKERS ARE
GOING TO BE NERVOUS ABOUT DOING SOMETHING I WOULD THINK,
POSSIBLY COULD CAUSE IT I THINK THEY WILL BE VERY SUCCESSFUL
WITH THAT ARGUMENT.
I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, CONNECTICUT IS AFRAID OF LOSING ANY
JOBS AT THE MOMENT, AND THAT, THAT'S GOING TO BE.
>> ENOUGH.
>> ENOUGH TO TAKE IT.
>> AND THE FACT THAT ONLY ONE OTHER STATE, CALIFORNIA, HAS
THIS LAW, IT IS NOT ENFORCED YET.
AND IT IS QUITE CLEAR APPARENTLY HOW IT IS GOING TO WORK
THERE, AT LEAST FROM WHAT WE WERE HEARING.
>> SO LAWMAKERS IT WOULD SEEMS TO ME HERE IN THE LEGISLATURE
HAVE A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM HERE TO SAY, OKAY, SOUNDS LIKE A
GREAT IDEA, BUT IN THE OLD CLICHE, IT'S A BILL WHO'S TIME HAS
NOT YET COME.
>> YES.
WE HAVE OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.
I DON'T -- I DON'T FORESEE IT PASSING THIS YEAR.
IT'S POSSIBLE.
CERTAINLY I WOULD EXPECT IT TO GET OUT OF THE COMMITTEE.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN ON IT?
>> I MEAN, IT TOOK SEVERAL YEARS TO GET THE LOST AND STOLEN          13
FIREARM ACT PASSED.
SO I THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER AND
IT IS GOING HAVE TO BE AROUND.
>> WHAT ABOUT -- ONLY ABOUT 30 SECONDS LEFT, BUT WHAT ABOUT
DOING THIS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL YOU DON'T HAVE 50 STATE LAWS
ON IT.
>> THAT WOULD ENTAIL GETTING 535 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO AGREE
TO IT.
AND I THINK THAT IF THEY ARE ABLE TO DO THAT, FOLKS WOULDN'T
BE LOBBYING THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT TO DO IT.
>> THAT MIGHT BE EVEN HARDER THAN GOING STATE BY STATE.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT.
WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK "ON THE RECORD."