We have to have $700 billion or the economy will fail.

We don't want to be a shareholder in that company and we think that companies are far stronger if they're public--if they're financed out of the public, rather than the government.

Citi continues to pose significant systemic risk. In fact, Citi is often cited as the poster child for 'too big to fail.'

Can I shrink that up? It's not all U.S. businesses.

I understand it's one factor, but can we both stipulate it's a very helpful factor?

Please don't tell me about advocating change for the future. What I'd like to know is what are you doing to manage the risks that are in front of Citi and facing the American people, right now?

we are concerned about the financial system. We're concerned that no institution should be able to present significant risk to the financial system.

Instead of that, why don't you concentrate on breaking Citi into more pieces, so that no one piece is too big to fail?

I think it would be hard to make the case that we can see some date in the immediate future when Citi will not be too big to fail.

The March 4 hearing of the Congressional Oversight Panel will come to order.

we are strongly advocating financial reforms to prevent this situation from happening again, by assuring that no single institution can threaten the financial system.

But of the original nine that needed money within weeks of the original TARP infusion--you got $25 billion, someone said you--the Secretary of the Treasury said you were financially healthy, and within weeks you needed another $20 billion…