David Vitter

I think it is obvious that you would not be on the short list by SIPC the next time, and that is the conflict I am talking about.

I do not think an entity like FDIC would have spent tens of millions of dollars to do back-somersaults to make those sorts of arguments.

So, do you think it was a fair characterization in making that argument that in buying CDs, these customers were loaning the broker-dealers money?

There was absolute fraud ab initio.

I think there has to be a better path to ensuring that SIPC, true to its mandate, is truly independent.

Congress owes it to investors to act and to change this.

Today, no investor can be confident their assets are protected by SIPC as Congress intended when SIPA was enacted.

I do question the conflict of interest between people who are named over and over and over as trustees, make a lot of money doing it, and that person's role protecting the investors.

Was there money in the Antiguan bank backing up those CDs?

I want to be clear--everybody has been shut out of recovery.

The status quo is a really perverse and rigged system that allows Wall Street to suck in innocent investors.

Right, except they had a CD and they never agreed to lend money to the brokerage firm.

Do you think that poses a potential conflict?

It seems to me that is particularly ironic that it is least certain in many cases of outright fraud versus market failure.

I represent a lot of Stanford investors.

The average customer is sort of actively being misled, as given this 'Good Housekeeping Seal,' member firms are actively using that for their benefit in the market.

I think the proposed legislation identifies several ways in which we can hopefully begin to rectify the problem.

Well, you are talking about an SEC statement of facts submitted to the district court that was incorrect, that is contrary to the forensic accounting.

There has been forensic accounting that has shown that there was no money in that Antiguan bank backing up the CDs.

I 100 percent agree with you, and in fact, I endorse the proposal allowing the SEC to be able to initiate SIPA proceedings.

We should recognize this fundamental disconnect and correct it in some way, either make that 'Good Housekeeping Seal' what it purports to be, or take it off everybody's doors and stop the complete misrepresentation.

I am deeply concerned about a regulatory avalanche coming from the Obama administration, aimed toward oil and gas.

That was a lie, a flat-out lie, and the experts eventually said that and made that clear.

That came from the Obama administration's short-sighted and knee-jerk reaction, particularly in the way they imposed a 6-month drilling moratorium.

To a lay person, when you have a radical, dangerous regime which has the capability within months of having nuclear weapons, it is not credible that everybody is just going to sit on their hands.