Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I honor Vermonter Lindol Atkins, Jr., a man who has dedicated his life to the struggle for workers' rights and economic justice. For more than 35 years, Lindol Atkins has provided spirited

and dedicated leadership in representing municipal employees in Burlington. As a former mayor of Burlington, I can attest firsthand that Mr. Atkins has distinguished himself as an indomitable leader of workers' rights efforts in the State of Vermont.

Lindol Atkins began his fight to improve the rights and protections of Burlington city employees back in 1968 when he joined AFSCME. Elected president of AFSCME Local 1343 in 1970, Lindol continued his mission to advance the rights of workers by skillfully handling all grievance and arbitration cases. As the lead negotiator for the union, he also led many successful contract campaigns that ultimately improved employees' wages and working conditions. In 2005, Mr. Atkins retired as president of the Burlington AFSCME local, but rather than slow down and enjoy his well-earned rest he continued his leadership role within the labor movement by being elected president of the Vermont State Labor Council, AFL-CIO.

A husband and father of 12, Lindol Atkins has the enviable ability to be able to do many things well--a wonderful and necessary quality in one with such a deep devotion to the labor movement as well as to his large, loving family. Indeed, it is the dedicated and remarkable people like Lindol Atkins who have kept America moving forward. His unparalleled commitment to civic values has been a major factor in earning Vermont its well-deserved reputation for social justice and principled community leadership. Lindol has received many awards for his work guiding Vermont's labor movement, with the capstone being the presentation of this year's AFL-CIO Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award.

The quality of life in Vermont, and in our Nation, is strengthened by individuals such as Lindol Atkins, Jr., whose quest to better working conditions for men and women in his community has brought a great sense of solidarity to not just the people of Vermont, but the entire Nation. I commend his loyalty and great contributions to the labor movement, to Vermont, and to the United States.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, let me begin by thanking my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, not only for his remarks today but for his excellent work throughout this process. I have enjoyed working with him. What we have tried to do in this whole process is to bring together people who come from very different ideologies to basically make the point that the time is now to end the secrecy at the Fed.

Madam President, I would like to yield myself 15 minutes, if the Chair can let me know when 15 minutes has expired.

Madam President, at a time when the Federal Reserve has been provided the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world, to the largest financial institutions in this country--trillion-dollar institutions--without the approval of Congress, without the real knowledge of the American people, the Sanders amendment makes it clear that the Fed can no longer operate forever in the kind of secrecy in which it has operated. Under the Sanders amendment, for the first time the American people will know exactly who received over $2 trillion in zero, or virtually zero, interest loans from the Fed, and they will know the exact terms of those financial arrangements.

Under the Sanders amendment, for the first time, the GAO will be required to conduct a top-to-bottom comprehensive audit of every single emergency action the Fed has undertaken since the financial crisis began. Under the Sanders amendment, for the first time, the GAO will investigate whether there were conflicts of interest surrounding the emergency actions of the Fed.

Madam President, the Fed has been fighting all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep this information secret. Well, this amendment says, in no uncertain terms, this money does not belong to the Fed; it belongs to the American people, and the American people have a right to know where their taxpayer dollars are going. That is not a difficult concept to get one's arms around. The American people have a right to know.

Specifically, the Sanders amendment does two things: First, it requires the Fed to put on its Web site by December 1, 2010, the names of all of the financial institutions, corporations and foreign central banks--let me repeat, foreign central banks--that received trillions of dollars in taxpayer assistance from the Fed since the beginning of the financial bailout period.

Second, the Sanders amendment requires the GAO--the Government Accountability Office--to conduct a top-to-bottom comprehensive audit of all of the emergency actions the Fed has taken since the beginning of the financial crisis, with a particular focus on all of the potential conflicts of interest within these secret deals. And that, Madam President, is an extremely important point which, by the way, was not in my original amendment.

The fight for a GAO audit of the Fed and to require more transparency has been a long and arduous struggle. There are many people to thank for being at the point we are today. Partisan politics aside, this has been a joint effort on the part of some of the most progressive Members of Congress and some of the most conservative, and some of the most progressive grass roots organizations and some of the most conservative.

I specifically want to thank, in the Senate, Majority Leader Reid, Majority Whip Durbin, Senators Dorgan, Feingold, Boxer, and Leahy and many others for their leadership on this issue on my side of the aisle, and to thank Senators DeMint, Vitter, Brownback, McCain, Grassley, and others on the other side of the aisle.

Last week, a number of Senators--Democrats and Republicans--indicated to me they were uncomfortable with my original amendment, which they believed would have allowed Congress to be involved in the day-to-day monetary operations of the Fed. That was never my intention, and I still do not believe my original amendment would have done that. Nonetheless, that is what a number of Senators believed and were concerned about and they came to me about. The chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, indicated to me if we could clarify this issue, he would not only be supportive of this amendment, but he would cosponsor it. That is exactly what he did, and I very much appreciate his support.

Let me just very briefly speak to what the principles of this amendment are. No. 1, the Sanders amendment, in terms of transparency, is clear we need to make sure the Federal Reserve releases the names of every single financial institution, corporation, and foreign central bank the Fed provided over $2 trillion in taxpayer assistance to since the financial crisis started and what the exact details of those arrangements were. This information, as a result of this amendment, will be on the Fed's Web site on December 1, 2010, and every single American who has a computer will be able to access that information. That is a major step forward.

Secondly, in terms of the audit, I have always believed the main purpose of this audit was for the GAO to conduct a top-to-bottom comprehensive review of every single emergency action the Fed has undertaken since the start of the financial crisis. That is exactly what this amendment does.

In addition, let me be clear, the modified amendment--the amendment I am offering today--is stronger than my original amendment on one very important point, a point I think millions of Americans are concerned about; that is, it requires the GAO to investigate whether there were conflicts of interest in the establishment of the emergency lending programs at the Fed.

My original amendment would have allowed the GAO to look into conflicts of interest at the Fed but did not require it. This amendment requires it. We are very specific about that.

For example, I want to know--and I think the American people want to know--why Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, attended a meeting at the New York Fed when the Federal Government decided to bail out AIG to the eventual tune of $182 billion, allowing Goldman Sachs to pocket $13 billion of that money. My original amendment would have allowed the GAO to look at this. The new amendment makes it clear this kind of conflict of

interest must be looked into by the GAO.

Further, I want to know--and I think the American people want to know--why the head of the New York Fed, Stephen Friedman, was allowed to serve on the board of directors at Goldman Sachs and was allowed to purchase over 37,000 shares of Goldman stock at the same time the New York Fed was approving Goldman's application to become a bank holding company. My original amendment would have allowed the GAO to look into this. The new Sanders amendment requires the Fed to investigate whether conflicts of interest existed in these types of financial deals.

Some 35 members of the Fed's Board of Directors are executives at banks which received over $120 billion in TARP money. I want to know-- and I think the American people want to know--how much these financial institutions received from the Fed and if this represents a conflict of interest. My original amendment would have allowed the GAO to look at this. The new Sanders amendment requires the GAO to take a look at those potential conflicts of interest.

What is important to point out is, in terms of transparency, I am not the only person--other Members of the Senate are not the only people-- who is demanding that the Fed tell us to whom they lent money. I would point out that Bloomberg News has gone to court and, in fact, has won two Federal court decisions against the Fed in which the courts have said the Fed has to release that information. But the Fed persists in saying no. They want to keep that information secret.

So that is where we are today. We are on the verge of lifting the veil of secrecy at perhaps the most important government agency in the United States--an agency which has control of and expends trillions of dollars. They do it behind closed doors, and they do it in ways the American people know very little about. So I ask for strong support for the Sanders amendment so we can go forward and break this veil of secrecy.

With that, Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, let me summarize again what the Sanders amendment does. Let me take my colleagues back to a meeting of the Budget Committee, on which I serve, about a year ago. Chairman Bernanke came before that committee. I asked him: Will you tell the committee, me, and the American people which large financial institutions received trillions of dollars of zero or near zero interest loans? I thought that was a reasonable question.

Mr. Bernanke said: No, I will not do that. I will not release that information.

On that day, I introduced legislation to compel him to release the information. This amendment, if passed, on December 1, 2010, would, in fact, contain that information. It is a major step forward.

Secondly, many Americans are beginning to catch on--and some Senators have referred to that today--to the immense power of the Fed. People are demanding transparency at the Fed. People want to know what happens behind closed doors when some of the leaders of the largest financial institutions sit down with the Fed and, lo and behold, programs are developed which benefit those very same large financial institutions. Wouldn't it be nice, wouldn't it be great if small businesses in Vermont could end up with zero interest loans? They can't. But somehow or another, some of the largest financial institutions in this country manage to do that, and we don't know how this process goes on.

Passage of the Sanders amendment is a step forward. I congratulate all those people from both political parties, with very different political ideologies, for coming forward, for pushing this issue forward. This is not the end. This is a beginning. As Senator Dodd said a moment ago, this is historic. We are beginning to lift the veil of secrecy on what is perhaps the most important agency in the government.

I urge passage of the Sanders amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3738.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment, which calls for transparency at the Fed, is, frankly, one of the more unusual amendments I have ever participated in, not so much for its content but for the kind of coalition that has come together around it. How often do you have the AFL-CIO and FreedomWorks supporting the same effort? How often do you have the SEIU, which is the largest trade union in this country, moveOn.org, which I believe has some 5 million progressive members, and Public Citizen striving for the same goal as the National Taxpayers Union or the Eagle Forum or the Conservative Americans for Tax Reform? There is a coalition representing tens of millions of grassroots activists. Some of them are progressive, some where I come from, some of them are conservative, but they are all united around a very basic principle: We need transparency at the Fed, and we need it now.

I want to use this opportunity--and I thank Chairman Dodd for allowing me to do this--to talk about the amendment, what it does, and why so many diverse groups are coming together in support of it because you do have to ask yourself: What is bringing together some of the most progressive groups in the country with some of the most conservative groups, some of the most progressive members of the Senate with some of the most conservative? I also want to tell my colleagues not only what this amendment does but to clarify as best I can what it does not because there has been some distortion about this amendment, and those distortions are blatantly untrue. I want to touch on that also.

The origin for this amendment came on March 3, 2009. That was the date that, as a member of the Budget Committee, I had the opportunity to ask Chairman Bernanke what I thought was a pretty simple question. Chairman Bernanke, obviously, is Chairman of the Fed. What I asked him was: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the Fed has lent out some $2 trillion to some of the largest financial institutions in this country. Would you please tell me and the American people who received that money? I thought that was a pretty simple and straightforward question. Mr. Bernanke said: No. Despite the fact that this was $2 trillion in zero interest or near zero interest loans, he apparently believes the American people do not have a right to know who received that money.

On that very same day, I introduced legislation requiring the Fed to put this information on its Web site, just as Congress required the Treasury Department to do with respect to the $700 billion TARP. And here we are today. Whatever one may think of TARP, one can get information as to who received that money, when it was paid back--the details. It is right there on the Internet. I believe that same information should be made available in terms of the Fed's zero interest and near zero interest loans.

What the Fed apparently does not understand--and this is the important point--is that this money, these trillions of dollars, do not belong to the Fed; they belong to the American people. It is incomprehensible to me--and I think to the overwhelming majority of people in our country--that the Fed believes they can keep this information secret.

This amendment not only requires that the Fed tell us who has received the $2 trillion it lent out, but, similar to the language incorporated in the House bill, it calls for an audit of the Fed by the GAO. That is it. That is what we are attempting to do with this amendment: transparency and a straightforward audit. Who got what when, on what basis, on what terms, who was at the meetings, who made the decisions, and taking a look at possible conflicts of interest--simple, factual questions that people from the State of Vermont ask me and I suspect people from Minnesota ask you, Mr. President, and people all over this country, regardless of their political persuasion, are asking.

I understand this amendment may not be supported by everyone. Some may suggest, inaccurately, that this amendment--and I quote from a statement--``takes away the independence of the Federal Reserve and puts monetary policy into the hands of Congress.'' That is one of the charges being made against this amendment.

Let me address that concern by simply reading to the Members of the Senate exactly what is in the amendment so that we know what we are talking about. I quote from page 4 of a six-page amendment. It is not a long amendment. It cannot be clearer than this. This is what it says:

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as

interference in or dictation of monetary policy to the

Federal Reserve System by the Congress or the Government

Accountability Office.

If there are people who are saying: Oh, we are going to get involved in monetary policy; oh, we are going to be politicizing the Fed; oh, we are going to have, before an election, Congress telling the Fed to raise interest rates or to lower interest rates, that is absolutely inaccurate. That is not what we are doing. That is not, in my view, what we should be doing.

We want an independent Fed. We want them to develop monetary policy. That is not--underline not--what this amendment does. This amendment does not tell the Fed when to cut short-term interest rates and when to raise them. It does not tell the Fed which banks to lend money to and which banks not to lend money to. It does not tell the Fed which foreign central banks they can do business with and which ones they cannot do business with. It does not impose any new regulations on the Fed, nor does it take any regulatory authority away from the Fed. Let's be clear about that.

I think what the opponents of this amendment are doing is equating independence with secrecy, and there is a difference. At a time when our entire financial system almost collapsed, we cannot let the Fed operate in secrecy any longer. The American people have a right to know.

I find it amusing that there are some people who oppose this amendment. As Chairman Dodd and the Presiding Officer know, we have had heated debates on the floor of the Senate over a $5 million amendment, over an $8 million provision that goes on for hours. Yet where we have trillions of dollars being lent out, there are some people who think the American people don't have a right to know who got that money. I think, frankly, that is absurd.

The American people, as we hear over and over on the floor of the Senate, play by the rules. That is what the average American family does; they play by the rules. Well, what are the rules governing the Fed? Who makes those rules or are they just made up as they go along and they do not have to tell anybody about it? So I have a problem with that, and that is what this amendment is about.

Here, to my mind--and these are just my issues; others may have different issues, and I am sure they do--are just a few of the questions the American people are asking and why we need a GAO audit of the Fed. These are just a few. Let me throw them out.

Why was Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, invited to the New York Federal Reserve to meet with Federal officials in September of 2008 to determine whether AIG would be bailed out or allowed to go bankrupt?

When the Fed and Treasury decided to bail out AIG to the tune of $182 billion, why did the Fed refuse to tell the American people where that money was going? Why did the Fed argue that this information needed to be kept secret ``as a matter of national security?''

Here is the point. When AIG finally released the names of the counterparties receiving this assistance, how did it happen that Goldman Sachs received $13 billion of this money; AIG, $182 billion; $13 billion going to Goldman Sachs--100 cents on the dollar of a company that was going bankrupt and that was bailed out. How is that-- 100 cents on the dollar? Not bad.

Another question people might ask: Did Goldman Sachs use this money to provide $16 billion in bonuses the next year? Here you have Goldman Sachs getting $13 billion out of the $182 billion that AIG got, and the next year they are announcing $16 billion in bonuses. Did they use some of this money to provide those bonuses?

A GAO audit of the Fed might help explain to the American people if there were any conflicts of interest surrounding this deal. I think the average American would say: Yes, there is a conflict of interest. You have a guy from Goldman Sachs sitting in the room arguing for $182 billion. They got $182 billion; he gets $13 billion. The next year his company gives $16 billion in bonuses.

Is there a conflict of interest? I think so. That is my opinion. My opinion isn't the important one, but that is what the GAO will be doing if this amendment is passed.

Just another question out there. In 2008, it seems to me--I may be wrong--there was a conflict of interest at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, when Stephen Friedman, the head of the New York Fed, who also served on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs--let's back it up. The head of the Fed serves on the board of Goldman Sachs, approved Goldman's application to become a bank holding company, giving it access to cheap loans from the Federal Reserve. OK. The head of the New York Federal Reserve, on the board of Goldman Sachs, is applying for Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company to gain cheap loans from the Fed.

It looks to me like there may be a conflict of interest, but what do I know? That is what we need a GAO report to tell us.

Here, interestingly enough, is an article from May 9, 2009, in the Wall Street Journal. Let me quote briefly from that article:

Goldman Sachs received speedy approval to become a bank

holding company in September of 2008. During that time, the

New York Fed's chairman, Stephen Friedman, sat on Goldman's

board and had a large holding in Goldman's stock, which,

because of Goldman's new status as a bank holding company,

was a violation of Federal Reserve policy. The New York Fed

asked for a waiver, which, after about 2\1/2\ months, the Fed

granted. While it was weighing the request, Mr. Friedman

bought 37,300 more Goldman shares in December. They have

since risen $1.7 million in value. Mr. Friedman, who once ran

Goldman, says none of these events involved any conflicts.

That is the Wall Street Journal article from May 9, 2009. That is what Mr. Friedman says. Well, I kind of disagree with him, but I would like the GAO to take a look at that. Without a comprehensive GAO report, we have to take Mr. Friedman at his word, and I don't think we should. Who got what? When did they get it? On what basis and what terms? Who was at those meetings? Were there conflicts of interest? These are the kinds of questions a GAO audit of the Fed will answer.

As a result of the bailout of Bear Stearns and AIG, the Fed--and this is a beauty, this is quite something--the Fed now owns credit default swaps--listen up on this one--betting that California, Nevada, and Florida will default on their debt. So the Federal Reserve stands to make money if California, Nevada, and Florida go bankrupt. I suspect that the Senators from the great States of California, Nevada, and Florida would be rather interested to know that if their States go bankrupt, the Fed makes money.

On the surface, this looks a little absurd to me, but again, I think this is an issue that the GAO might be taking a look at.

It has been reported that the Federal Reserve pressured the Bank of America into acquiring Merrill Lynch--making this financial institution even bigger and riskier--allegedly threatening to fire its CEO if the Bank of America backed out of this merger. When the merger went through, Merrill Lynch employees received $3.7 billion in bonuses. Was this a good deal for the American taxpayer? A GAO audit can help us find out.

When the Federal Reserve provided a $29 billion loan to JPMorgan Chase to acquire Bear Stearns, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, served on the Board of Directors at the New York Federal Reserve. Let me repeat that. When the Federal Reserve provided $29 billion to JPMorgan Chase, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase served on the Board of Directors of the New York Fed. Did this represent a conflict of interest? I think the average American would say yes. Maybe some people would have a different point of view. But I think a GAO audit can help explain all this to the American people.

Currently--and I think we have to appreciate this as well; we have to shed some light on these issues--some 35 members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors are executives at private financial institutions which have received nearly $120 billion in TARP funds, but we don't know how much these big banks received from the Fed. We know what they got from the TARP, not from the Fed. A GAO audit could answer this question.

All of us--I believe all of us--are deeply concerned that small- and medium-sized businesses around this country--I know it is certainly the case in Vermont--are begging for affordable credit. They have the opportunity to expand. We are beginning to see some economic recovery, but they want to expand, they want to create new jobs, and they are finding it extremely difficult to acquire those desperately needed affordable loans. I find it an important issue to ask how much of the trillions of dollars in zero or near zero interest loans that financial institutions received from the Fed went out to those small businesses or, perhaps, as I personally believe is the

case, were simply invested in Federal Government bonds, earning an interest rate of 3 or 4 percent.

A number of observers believe--and the GAO can help us discover--the Fed provided zero interest loans to a large bank, which then took that money and bought government bonds at 3 percent. If that was the case, and I suspect it was, you are looking at a huge scam--a huge scam--when small- and medium-sized businesses needed the money. That was the intention of these loans. But I don't know how much of this was invested in growth bonds, you don't know, and the American people don't know. It is time we found out.

This amendment I am offering is virtually identical to legislation that I have offered on this subject that has 33 cosponsors. The amendment, I think, has 20, 22 Democrats and Republicans. The original legislation had 33 cosponsors. Just so you can get a sense of the diversity of ideological opinion behind this amendment, let me tell you the names of the people on board the legislation--not the amendment, the legislation: Senators Barrasso, Bennett, Boxer, Brownback, Burr, Cardin, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Crapo, DeMint, Dorgan, Feingold, Graham, Grassley, Harkin, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Landrieu, Leahy, Lincoln, McCain, Murkowski, Risch, Sanders, Thune, Vitter, Webb, Wicker, and Wyden.

Those are people who are on the original legislation--33 cosponsors. As you can see, they range from some of the most progressive Members to some of the most conservative Members. The amendment that is now on the floor has, I believe, 22 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats alike, and I wish to thank all of them for their support.

The American people are asking: Can people work together? Can they come together on important issues? If there is an important issue that people with different ideological backgrounds have come together on, this is that one. So I wished to thank my Republican friends and my Democratic friends who, every other day, are fighting like cats and mice but on this issue have come together, and I appreciate that.

But it is not only the Members of the Senate. In terms of progressive grassroots organizations, this amendment enjoys the strong support of the AFL-CIO; the Service Employees International Union, the single largest union in the country; the United Steelworkers of America; Public Citizen; the New American Foundation; Center for Economic Policy; U.S. Public Interest Research Group; Americans for Financial Reform, which is a coalition of over 250 consumer, employee, investor, community, and civil rights groups. There is a huge amount of support from the progressive community. It also has a huge amount of support from the conservative community.

Let me read, briefly, a letter I received from the legislative director of the AFL-CIO. This is what he says:

On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to urge you to

support the Sanders-Feingold-DeMint-Leahy-McCain-Grassley-

Vitter-Brownback amendment to increase transparency at the

Federal Reserve. Working people want to know who benefitted

from the liquidity provided by taxpayers during the crisis

and this amendment will ensure that we receive this

information.

I received another letter, which came from the president of the SCIU, the president of the United Steelworkers, the president of Public Citizen and many other progressive groups and this is what they say:

Since the start of the financial crisis, the Federal

Reserve has dramatically changed its operating procedures.

Instead of simply setting interest rates to influence

macroeconomic conditions, it rapidly acquired a wide variety

of private assets and extended massive secret bailouts to

major financial institutions. There are still many questions

about the Fed's behavior in these new activities. The Federal

Reserve's balance sheet expanded to more than $2 trillion,

along with implied and implicit backstops to Wall Street

firms that could cost even more. Who received the money?

Against what collateral? On what terms and conditions? The

only way to find out is through a complete audit of the

Federal Reserve. That's why we support the amendment to

increase transparency at the Fed.

That is from the SEIU, and many other unions.

That is what some of the progressive groups, quite frankly, that I work with quite often have to say about this amendment. But let me quote from some of the conservative organizations that, frankly, I usually do not have very good voting records with. Very often they oppose what I bring forth.

Here is the National Taxpayers Union. I don't know how many folks they have, but they are a big organization. This is what the National Taxpayers Union says:

The National Taxpayers Union urges all Senators to vote

``yes'' on S. Amendment 3738 to the financial regulatory

reform legislation. This amendment, introduced by Senators

Sanders and DeMint, would require the Government

Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the Federal

Reserve. . . .

I like their next sentence.

Transparency is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but

rather an issue of right or wrong. If the Senate insists on

further expanding the Fed's reach, Americans deserve to know

more about the workings of a government-sanctioned entity

whose decisions directly affect their economic livelihood. A

``yes'' vote on S. amendment 3738 [this amendment] will be

significantly weighted as a pro-taxpayer vote in our annual

Rating of Congress.

That means I may have at least a 1-percent approval vote from the National Taxpayers Union. I appreciate their support. That is from the National Taxpayers Union.

Let me quote from another letter of support I received from a group of conservative organizations that includes the Americans for Tax Reform, the Campaign for Liberty, the Rutherford Institute, the Eagle forum, Freedomworks, and the Center for Fiscal Accountability--again, some of the more conservative groups in the country, groups that usually do not support my issues. This is what they say:

We urge you to vote for Senators Sanders, Feingold, DeMint,

and Vitter's Federal Reserve Transparency Amendment. . . .

This amendment does not take away the ``independence'' of the

Fed. It simply requires the GAO to conduct an independent

audit of the Fed and requires the Fed to release the names of

the recipients of more than $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed

assistance during this latest economic crisis. Any true

financial reform effort will start with requiring

accountability from our Nation's central bank.

Let me thank all of the conservative groups--in this case the Americans for Tax Reform, the Campaign for Liberty, and the others--for their very strong grassroots effort in supporting this amendment. It is an indication, again, that on certain issues progressives and conservatives can come together.

Let me mention this because I think it is possible that some of the Members do not know this. This amendment is not a radical idea. As part of the budget resolution debate in April of 2009, the Senate voted overwhelmingly in support of this concept by a vote of 59 to 39. I brought that up. It was a nonbinding vote, part of the budget resolution, 59 to 39. So many Senators have already gone on record supporting that.

Here is also an important piece of information. In the House of Representatives, this concept passed the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43 to 26 and was incorporated into the House version of the Wall Street reform bill that was approved by the House last December.

Again, what we are talking about is something that was passed in the House, and it is in the House bill. There is a variation. We are not the same, to be honest, but the same concept--for a Fed audit--already exists in the Wall Street reform bill passed in the House.

This concept has the support of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who has said Congress should ask the Fed to put this information ``on the Internet like they've done with the recovery package and the budget.'' That is exactly what this amendment would do.

Here is another point many people don't know. A lot of this language is in the House bill. A lot of this language has already been supported in the Senate last year as part of the budget resolution. But here is an important point many people do not know. Bloomberg News service did a very good job, and they have aggressively demanded, as a news organization, this information about who the Fed lent money to be made public. As a result of their efforts, two Federal courts--not one, two Federal courts--have ordered the Fed to release all the names and details of the recipients of more than $2 trillion in Federal Reserve loans since the financial crisis as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

So Bloomberg News filed suit and two Federal courts supported

Bloomberg. The Fed had argued in court in opposition to Bloomberg that it should not have to release this information, citing, according to Reuters--this is what the Fed said--``an exemption that it said lets Federal agencies keep secret various trade secrets and commercial or financial information.''

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York disagreed. Here is what a unanimous three-judge appeals court panel wrote in their opinion:

To give the Fed power to deny disclosure because it thinks

it best to do so would undermine the basic policy that

disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective. If the

Board believes such an exemption would better serve the

national interest, it should ask Congress to amend the

statute.

This appeals court decision upheld an earlier ruling by the Southern Federal District Court of New York that also ordered the Fed to release this information. In other words, we now have 59 Senators who, as part of the budget resolution, voted on this issue; 320 Members of Congress, the House, and two U.S. courts that have all told the Fed in no uncertain terms: Give us transparency. That is what we have.

As I wind down and conclude my remarks, let me just simply say that I am thankful for all of the support, all the grassroots support from progressive and conservative groups, and from my fellow Senators. The American people have a right to know when trillions of their dollars are being spent and who gets it. The American people have a right to know whether there are conflicts of interest.

I thank my colleagues--there are so many cosponsors, I will not mention them all--but I thank all of them.

Let me conclude by saying I am very proud to say we have been working with Senator Dodd's office and some other offices.

Amendment No. 3738, as Modified

I am going to ask that my amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk. I am proud to say these modifications have been worked out with Senator Dodd and would allow the GAO to conduct a top-to- bottom audit of all of the Federal Reserve's emergency lending activities since December 1, 2007. In addition, the modifications require the Fed to put on its Web site all of the recipients of over $2 trillion in emergency assistance since December 1, 2007.

I thank the chairman.

I thank the Senator from Iowa not only for his support but for his long fight for transparency. It has been a pleasure working with the Senator.

I wish to thank the Senator from Kansas for his remarks and for his strong support from day one for this concept of transparency of the Fed.

Point of order: How many hands do you need up?

Madam President, as soon as I possibly can, I intend to bring

up an amendment which calls for transparency at the Fed. I must tell my colleagues that this amendment is one of the more unusual amendments that has been brought up in the Senate, I suspect for many years, because of the rather strange coalition that has come together around it. How often do we have the AFL-CIO, a progressive organization, and Freedom Works, a very conservative organization, supporting the same effort? How often are the SEIU, the largest union in America; moveon.org, 5 million members as a progressive organization; and Public Citizen, another progressive organization, striving for the same goal as the National Taxpayers Union or the Eagle Forum or Americans for Tax Reform, very conservative organizations? How often do we have some of the most progressive Members in Congress--and I include myself within that fold--working with some of the more conservative Members? It doesn't happen every day, but that is what is happening on this amendment.

I rise to talk about the amendment, what it does, and why so many diverse groups, representing tens of millions of Americans, are coming together in support of it. I also wish to suggest what it does not do and some of the ways it has been distorted by the Fed and other groups that are opposed. I have seen some of the statements made by the Fed which are absolutely untrue in terms of what this amendment does and does not do.

For me, the origin of this amendment came on March 3, 2009, when, as a member of the Budget Committee, I asked the Chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, a very simple question. I asked him if he would tell me, the committee, and the American people which financial institutions received over $2 trillion in zero interest or near zero interest loans during the start of the economic crisis. During the bailout period, some $2 trillion of taxpayer money was lent. My question was: Mr. Chairman, who received that money? I don't think that is an unfair question. We have heard great debates here on the Senate floor about $5 million or $10 million. To ask who received over $2 trillion in zero or near zero interest loans is something I believe should be answered by the Fed, and they should make that information public. But Bernanke said no. He gave his reasons.

On that very day, I introduced legislation that would require the Fed to put this information on its Web site, make it public, just as Congress required the Treasury Department to do with respect to the $700 billion TARP money. Some may like TARP; some may not. Some may have voted for it; some may not have. But the information about who received the money, when it was paid back, et cetera, is right there on the Web site of the Treasury Department.

This $2 trillion in zero or near zero interest loans does not belong to the Fed. It belongs to the American people, and the American people have a right to know where trillions of their taxpayer dollars are going. It is not complicated. One doesn't need an MBA from Wharton to know that. That is why millions of Americans, whether conservative or progressive or in between, have come together to say we need transparency at the Fed.

This amendment not only requires that the Fed tell us who has received the $2 trillion it lent out, but, similar to the language incorporated in the House bill, it calls for an audit of the Fed by the GAO. As we all know, the GAO is the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that does a great job in trying to figure out where there is waste and fraud within the government. That is it. This is a very simple, short amendment. It is five pages. It calls for transparency at the Fed and a straightforward audit. Who got what? When did they get it? On what basis and on what terms? Who was at the meetings? Who made the decisions and were there conflicts of interest? Simple, factual questions the American people deserve answers to. That is what it is; it is not complicated.

I understand this amendment will not be supported by everyone. Some may suggest, inaccurately--and I have heard these statements--that this amendment ``takes away the independence of the Federal Reserve and puts monetary policy into the hands of Congress.'' Let me address those concerns by simply reading exactly what is in the amendment. It is not complicated. I quote from page 4 of the amendment. This is what it says. I don't think I can be more straightforward than this:

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as

interference in or dictation of monetary policy by the

Federal Reserve system, by the Congress, or the Government

Accountability Office.

It can't be more simple. It can't be more straightforward than the language in this amendment. So when people tell us this amendment is going to interfere and have Congress dictate monetary policy, it is simply not true. In other words, this amendment does not take away the ``independence of the Fed'' and it does not put monetary policy into the hands of Congress. This amendment does not tell the Fed when to cut short-term interest rates or when to raise them. It does not tell the Fed what banks to lend money to and what banks not to lend money to. It does not tell the Fed which foreign central banks it can do business with and which ones it cannot. It does not impose any new regulations on the Fed, nor does it take any regulatory authority away from the Fed. It does none of those things, no matter what anybody coming to the floor may say.

What the opponents of this amendment are doing is equating independence, which we support, with secrecy, which I do not support. At a time when our entire financial system almost collapsed, we cannot let the Fed continue to operate in the kind of secrecy they have operated in for years. The American people have a right to know.

Very often, we see Senators coming down here to the floor to make the point that working people have to play by the rules. How often have we heard that rhetoric? What are the rules governing the Fed? Who makes those rules or do they just make them up as they go along?

Let me list a few of the questions millions of Americans and Members of Congress are asking that a GAO audit might help to answer. I am sure there are many more.

Question: Why was Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, invited to the New York Federal Reserve to meet with Federal officials in September of 2008 to determine whether AIG would be bailed out or allowed to go bankrupt? I wasn't invited to that meeting. Other Senators were not invited to that meeting. Lloyd Blankfein was invited to that meeting.

When the Fed and Treasury decided to bail out AIG to the tune of $182 billion, why did the Fed refuse to tell the American people where that money was going? Why did the Fed argue that this information needed to be kept secret ``as a matter of national security''?

When AIG finally released the names of the counterparties receiving this assistance, how did it happen that Goldman Sachs received $13 billion of this money, 100 cents on the dollar on what AIG owed them? How did that happen? I don't know. We don't know. The American people don't know. But I think we have a right to know.

Did Goldman Sachs use this money to provide $16 billion in bonuses to its top executives the next year? All over this country, Americans have lost their jobs. They have lost their homes. They have lost their savings. They have lost their ability to send their kids to college because of this recession caused by Wall Street. Yet Goldman Sachs gets $13 billion--100 cents on the dollar--after AIG is bailed out at a meeting in which Lloyd Blankfein is in attendance.

I think it is an interesting question. I don't know the answer, but I think the American people have a right to know. A GAO audit of the Fed might help explain to the American people if there were any conflicts of interest surrounding that deal. Who got what? On what basis? On what terms? Who was at the meetings? Who made the decisions? And were there conflicts of interests?

In 2008, it seems to me--I did not go to Harvard Business School, but it does seem to me--there was an apparent conflict of interest at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York when Stephen Friedman, the head of the New York Fed--who also served on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs--let me repeat that: He was the head of the New York Fed; he also served on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs--and the New York Fed approved Goldman's application to become a bank holding

company, giving it access to cheap loans from the Federal Reserve.

Let me quote from an article published in the Wall Street Journal on May 9, 2009, and let the American people determine whether this deserves a GAO audit. Quoting the Wall Street Journal:

Goldman Sachs received speedy approval to become a bank

holding company in September of 2008. . . . During that time,

the New York Fed's chairman, Stephen Friedman, sat on

Goldman's board and had a large holding in Goldman stock,

which because of Goldman's new status as a bank holding

company was a violation of Federal Reserve policy. The New

York Fed asked for a waiver, which after about 2\1/2\ months,

the Fed granted. While it was weighing the request, Mr.

Friedman bought 37,300 more Goldman shares in December. They

have since risen $1.7 million in value. Mr. Friedman, who

once ran Goldman, says none of these events involved any

conflicts.

That was from the Wall Street Journal of May 9, 2009.

Well, maybe Mr. Friedman is right. Maybe there is not a conflict of interest. It seems to me there is a very apparent conflict of interest, but that is an issue that maybe a GAO audit might want to look at.

As a result of the bailout of Bear Stearns and AIG, the Fed now owns--this is pretty amazing--now owns credit default swaps betting that California, Nevada, and Florida will default on their debt. Let me repeat that. Senators from California and Nevada and Florida might be interested in this. As a result of the bailout of Bear Stearns and AIG, the Fed now owns credit default swaps betting that California, Nevada, and Florida will default on their debt.

So the Federal Reserve stands to make money if California, Nevada, and Florida go bankrupt. What can I tell you? This is the reality. I know it will seem strange to the American people that the Fed makes money and is betting that three of our great States go bankrupt. This may make sense to the Fed. It may make sense to some of my colleagues in the Senate. It does not make sense to me. Frankly, I do not believe it makes sense to the American people. But this is what an audit of the Fed will allow us to better understand: whether we want the Fed to be betting against some of our great States, that they will go bankrupt.

It has been reported that the Federal Reserve pressured Bank of America into acquiring Merrill Lynch--making this financial institution even bigger and riskier--allegedly threatening to fire its CEO if Bank of America backed out of this merger. When the merger went through, Merrill Lynch's employees received $3.7 billion in bonuses. Was this a good deal or a bad deal for the American taxpayer? Perhaps a GAO audit can help us find out.

When the Fed provided a $29 billion loan to JPMorgan Chase to acquire Bear Stearns, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Mr. Diamond, served on the board of directors at the New York Federal Reserve. Let me repeat that. When the Fed provided a $29 billion loan to JPMorgan Chase to acquire Bear Stearns, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Mr. Diamond, served on the board of directors at the New York Federal Reserve.

Did this represent a conflict of interest? To my mind, it does. Maybe I am wrong. But that is what a GAO audit can help explain to the American people.

Again, I know we are going to have Senators running down here saying: Oh, we are trying to break the independence of the Fed.

We are not trying to do that. What we are trying to do is allow the American people to get a glimpse and an understanding of some of the actions of the Fed involving huge sums of money.

Currently, some 35 members of the Federal Reserve's board of directors are executives at private financial institutions which have received nearly $120 billion in TARP funds, but we do not know how much these big banks received from the Fed. A GAO audit could answer that question.

Here is a very interesting point I know a lot of Senators have raised in different context: If the goal of the huge amounts of money in Fed loans--trillions of dollars in Fed loans--to large financial institutions was to achieve the goal of getting credit flowing to small- and medium-sized businesses that were cash starved--they were crying out for credit--why is small business lending in freefall? What happened? We gave the large financial institutions trillions of dollars, presumably to get it out to the small- and medium-sized businesses. They have not gotten it. Question--I think it is a reasonable question, and I am not the only one who is asking it--how much of those zero interest or near zero interest loans that these huge financial institutions received from the Fed were simply invested in Federal Government bonds, earning an interest rate of 3 or 4 percent?

In other words, are we looking at a huge scam? I cannot think of a better word. You give these large financial institutions trillions of dollars in zero interest loans in order to enable them to provide desperately needed loans to small- and medium-sized businesses, so those businesses can expand and create jobs. Yet that appears not to be happening.

Question: How much of those--those several trillion dollars in loans--simply went from the Fed to the financial institutions in order to purchase government-backed obligations at 3 or 4 percent? If that is the case, that is just giving away money. You have zero interest coming in; you get 3 or 4 percent guaranteed by the faith and credit of the United States of America.

Well, do you know what. I do not know. I do not know how much. I suspect, other people suspect, that was done. How much, I do not know. Maybe the GAO can tell us.

This amendment is virtually identical to legislation I have introduced on this subject that has 33 cosponsors. Just as we have a very broad spectrum of political ideology from grassroots organizations on the left and the right--conservative, progressive; Democrat, Republican--supporting this amendment, so we have had widespread-- across ideology--support for this legislation.

Let me mention who the 33 cosponsors are. You will see how people with very different political ideologies have come together. The names of those people are: Senators Barrasso, Bennett, Boxer, Brownback, Burr, Cardin, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Crapo, DeMint, Dorgan, Feingold, Graham, Grassley, Harkin, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Landrieu, Leahy, Lincoln, McCain, Murkowski, Risch, Sanders, Thune, Vitter, Webb, Wicker, and Wyden. Those are the people who have supported the legislation.

This amendment coming to the floor has 20 cosponsors--Republicans and Democrats alike--and I want to thank all of those Senators for their support.

In terms of progressive grassroots organizations, this amendment enjoys the strong support of the AFL-CIO; the SEIU, the largest union in America; the United Steelworkers of America; Public Citizen; the New America Foundation; the Center for Economic Policy and Research; the Roosevelt Institute; the U.S. Public Interest Research Group; and Americans for Financial Reform, which in itself is a coalition of over 250 consumer, employee, investor, community, and civil rights groups.

Let me read you a letter of support I received for this amendment from Bill Samuel, the legislative director of the AFL-CIO. This what the AFL-CIO said:

On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to urge you to

support--

This is a letter going out to other Senators--

the Sanders, Feingold, DeMint, Leahy, McCain, Grassley,

Vitter, Brownback amendment to increase transparency at

the Federal Reserve. . . . Working people want to know who

benefitted from the liquidity provided by taxpayers during

the crisis and this amendment will ensure that we receive

this information.

Let me also quote from a letter I received from Andy Stern, the president of the SEIU, the largest union in the country; and also from Leo Gerard, the president of the United Steelworkers of America; and a number of other academics and economists. This is what they write:

Since the start of the financial crisis, the Federal

Reserve has dramatically changed its operating procedures.

Instead of simply setting interest rates to influence

macroeconomic conditions, it rapidly acquired a wide variety

of private assets and extended massive secret bailouts to

major financial institutions. There are still many questions

about the Fed's behavior in these new activities. The Federal

Reserve balance sheet expanded to more than $2 trillion,

along with implied and explicit backstops to Wall Street

firms that could cost even more. Who

received the money? Against what collateral? On what terms

and conditions? The only way to find out is through a

complete audit of the Federal Reserve. That's why we support

the Sanders, Feingold, DeMint, Leahy, McCain, Grassley,

Vitter, Brownback amendment to increase transparency at the

Fed.

That is what leading progressive economic and social justice organizations are saying about this amendment.

Let me briefly, if I might, quote from some of the conservative organizations. One of the larger ones is the National Taxpayers Union. I do not usually quote from the National Taxpayers Union. I think I am not rated very highly on their chart. But this is what they say in support of this amendment:

The National Taxpayers Union urges all Senators to vote

``YES'' on S. AMDT 3738 to the financial regulatory reform

legislation. This amendment, introduced by Senators Sanders

and DeMint, would require the Government Accountability

Office to conduct an audit of the Federal Reserve. . . .

Transparency is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but

rather an issue of right or wrong. If the Senate insists on

further expanding the Fed's reach, Americans deserve to know

more about the workings of a government-sanctioned entity

whose decisions directly affect their economic livelihood. A

``YES'' vote on S. AMDT 3738 will be significantly weighted

as a pro-taxpayer vote in our annual Rating of Congress.

We also have support from other conservative organizations, including Americans for Tax Reform, the Campaign for Liberty, the Rutherford Institute, the Eagle Forum, FreedomWorks, and the Center for Fiscal Accountability. In a letter of support I received from them they write:

We urge you to vote for Senators Sanders, Feingold, DeMint,

and Vitter's Federal Reserve Transparency Amendment . . .

This amendment does not take away the ``independence'' of the

Fed. It simply requires the GAO to conduct an independent

audit of the Fed and requires the Fed to release the names of

the recipients of more than $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed

assistance during this latest economic crisis. Any true

financial reform effort will start with requiring

accountability from our nation's central bank.

Let me conclude by saying this amendment is not a radical idea. I have just indicated to you that we have progressive groups, representing millions of people, and we have conservative groups, representing millions of people. We have the AARP, the largest senior group, representing, I think, tens of million of Americans.

I should also mention to you that as part of the budget resolution debate in April of 2009, the Senate voted overwhelmingly in support of this basic concept, by a vote of 59 to 39.

In the House of Representatives, this concept passed the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43 to 26 and was incorporated into the House version of Wall Street reform that was approved by the House last December.

In other words, a lot of what I am talking about is in the House bill--not a radical concept. This idea has the support of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who said Congress should ask the Fed to put this information ``on the Internet like they've done with the recovery package and the budget.'' That is what this amendment does.

This concept has also been supported--and this is important. I know my friend from Texas wants to speak. I am winding down and I apologize for going on this long. But it is important to point out that this concept has also been supported by two Federal courts that have ordered the Fed to release all of the names and details of the recipients of more than $2 trillion in Federal Reserve loans since the financial crisis started as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Bloomberg News.

The Fed has argued in court that it should not have to release this information citing, according to Reuters: ``an exemption that it said lets federal agencies keep secret various trade secrets and commercial or financial information.'' That is what the U.S. Appeals Court in New York said in disagreeing with the Fed. It was a unanimous three-judge appeals court. This is what they wrote in their opinion:

to give the [Fed] power to deny disclosure because it thinks

it best to do so would undermine the basic policy that

disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective. If the

board believes such an exemption would better serve the

national interests, it should ask Congress to amend the

statute.

Let me conclude by saying this: We now have 59 Senators having voted for this transparency, 320 Members of the House, and 2 U.S. courts. All we want to know is who got trillions of dollars. That is what we want to know. We also want to know on what basis, on what terms, and who was at the meetings where key decisions were made.

This is an important amendment, and it is an amendment that millions of people want to see pass. I hope we will have an opportunity to offer it as soon as possible, and I hope it is passed.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, do we have any sense of what is happening this afternoon?

Mr. President, before I talk about financial reform, I did want to say a word about the disaster on the gulf coast now and the oil spillage there. Obviously, all of our hearts go out to the families of the 11 workers who lost their lives and to the thousands and thousands of employees in the region who are going to lose their jobs as this terrible contamination spreads all over the gulf coast.

But I hope very much we comprehend, in the midst of the disaster, that when we are dealing with technologies such as offshore drilling or, in fact, nuclear energy, we cannot be 99.99 percent successful. Unfortunately, as human beings, 100 percent success is a goal we often do not reach. That is why, in my view, as someone who has long opposed offshore drilling, I think it is absolutely imperative we understand as a nation if we move aggressively to energy efficiency, if we move aggressively to such clean, sustainable energies as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, we can, in fact, break our dependence on foreign oil and on fossil fuel in general, and we can create millions of jobs as we become energy independent without having to deal with the calamities we are experiencing today.

Mr. President, either tomorrow or shortly after--I hope tomorrow--I will be offering an amendment which deals with transparency at the Fed. I did want to say a few words about that.

At a time when many Americans are dispirited by the intensity of the partisanship which they see in Congress, this amendment, demanding transparency at the Federal Reserve, does something which is quite unusual. It brings together some of the most progressive Members of the U.S. Congress--and I consider myself in that fold--with some of the most conservative. It also brings together some of the strongest grassroots progressive organizations in the country with some of the most conservative. So what we are seeing in this amendment is a coming together of millions of Americans who have very different political ideologies but who agree it is absolutely imperative we bring transparency to the Fed.

This amendment is virtually identical to legislation I have offered on the subject that now has 33 cosponsors. In order to give an indication of the diversity of ideological position, let me read who they are. They are Senators Barrasso, Bennett, Boxer, Brownback, Burr, Cardin, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Crapo, DeMint, Dorgan, Feingold, Graham, Grassley, Harkin, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Landrieu, Leahy, Lincoln, McCain, Murkowski, Risch, Sanders, Thune, Vitter, Webb, Wicker, and Wyden. That is a very broad cross section of ideological opinion in the Senate.

In the House of Representatives, a similar process has taken place, and this concept has been cosponsored by 320 Members of Congress. That is a lot. That very rarely happens. That legislation was authored by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson.

The amendment I will be bringing to the floor of the Senate has 15 cosponsors--Republicans and Democrats alike--and I very much appreciate their support. This amendment is simple and it is straightforward. At a time when the Federal Reserve has provided over $2 trillion in zero or near zero interest loans to some of the largest financial institutions in this country, this amendment requires the Fed to tell the American people who got the money. I do not think that is a very radical concept.

This amendment would simply do two things: No. 1, require the nonpartisan GAO, the Government Accountability Office, to conduct an independent and comprehensive audit of the Fed within 1 year; and, secondly, require the Federal Reserve to disclose the names of the financial institutions that received over $2 trillion in virtually zero interest loans since the start of this recession.

In terms of progressive grassroots organizations, this amendment enjoys the strong support of Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of over 250--250--consumer, employee, investor, community, and civil rights groups, including the AFL-CIO, which represents millions of American workers, and the AARP, which is the largest senior group in this country representing tens of millions of seniors. So what we are looking at are grassroots organizations representing a huge part of our population that say it is time for transparency at the Fed.

There are also many conservative grassroots organizations that are supporting this amendment, including the Campaign for Liberty, the Rutherford Institute, the Eagle Forum, and many other groups.

This amendment is not a radical idea. As part of the budget resolution debate in April of 2009, the Senate voted overwhelmingly in support of this concept by a vote of 59 to 39. That is a strong sign that this Senate wants transparency.

In the House of Representatives, this concept passed the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43 to 28 and was incorporated into the House version of the Wall Street reform bill that was approved by the House last December. So a provision very similar to what I am offering is already in the House bill. So we are not talking about some kind of fringy idea. It has widespread support in the Senate. It is already, to a significant degree, incorporated into the House bill.

This concept has the support of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who has said Congress should ask the Fed to put this information ``on the

Internet like they've done with the recovery package and the budget.'' In other words, what she is saying is, if we look at the TARP bailout, we have all the information we want--from who received that money, how it was paid back, et cetera, et cetera--it is out there on the Internet of the Treasury Department. That is where it should be. We want to bring that same type of transparency to the Fed.

This concept, interestingly enough, has already been supported by two Federal courts--two Federal courts--that have ordered the Fed to release all of the names and details of the recipients of more than $2 trillion in Federal Reserve loans since the financial crisis started as a result of the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Bloomberg News.

The Fed has argued in court that it should not have to release this information, citing, according to Reuters, ``an exemption that it said lets federal agencies keep secret various trade secrets and commercial or financial information.''

However--this is important; this is not Bernie Sanders speaking, but this is a Federal court--the U.S. Appeals Court in New York disagreed with the Fed's assertion. Here is what a unanimous--underline ``unanimous''--three-judge appeals court panel wrote in their opinion. I quote them:

[T]o give the [Fed] power to deny disclosure because it

thinks it best to do so would undermine the basic policy that

disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective. If the

Board--

The Fed--

believes such an exemption would better serve the national

interest it should ask Congress to amend the statute.

That is what a three-judge U.S. appeals court panel unanimously said. This appeals court decision upheld an earlier ruling by the Southern Federal District Court of New York that also ordered the Fed to release this information.

In other words, we now have 59 Senators, 320 Members of the House of Representatives, and 2 U.S. courts who have all told the Fed, in no uncertain terms: Give us transparency. Tell us what happened when you put at risk trillions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Based on the kind of grassroots support that exists in support of my amendment, I think the overwhelming majority of the American people want that transparency, and it is our job to give it to them.

I do understand this amendment will not be supported by every Member of the Senate. Some of them may come up and say: Well, it is not accurate, so I want to deal with this right now. They may state that this amendment would take away the independence of the Fed and put monetary policy into the hands of Congress. Every other day, there could be a great debate here about whether we raise interest rates and that we get involved in every detail of monetary policy. That is absolutely not what this amendment does, and the language in the amendment is very, very clear.

This amendment does not take away the court-appointed independence of the Fed, and it does not put monetary policy into the hands of Congress. This amendment does not tell the Fed when to cut short-term interest rates or when to raise them. It does not tell the Fed what banks to lend money to and what banks not to lend money to. It does not tell the Fed which foreign central banks they can do business with and which ones they cannot do business with. It does not impose any new regulations on the Fed, nor does it take any regulatory authority away from the Fed. In fact, the amendment prohibits Congress and the GAO from interfering with or dictating the monetary policy decisionmaking at the Fed. We are very clear about this in the amendment. This amendment simply requires the GAO to conduct an independent audit of the Fed and requires the Fed to release the names of the recipients of more than $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed assistance.

There is a lot more to say, and I look forward to saying it when the amendment gets to the floor. Let me conclude by saying this: I don't remember the exact date--perhaps a year or so ago--when, as a member of the Budget Committee, we were addressed by Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Fed. When he came before the committee, I asked Mr. Bernanke if he would release the names of the financial institutions that received trillions of dollars on near zero interest loans. He said he would not do that. On that day, I introduced the legislation which now has 33 cosponsors.

So I look forward to hopefully tomorrow bringing this amendment to the floor. I am proud of the kind of tripartisan support we have gotten. I am proud of the fact that we have people from every conceivable ideology who are fighting for transparency, and I hope we can win this amendment and let the American people get an understanding of who received trillions of dollars of their money during the bailout period.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

I thank my colleague, and I applaud his introducing this amendment.

The issue of credit card companies charging Americans outrageously high interest rates is something that has concerned me for a number of years. We have another amendment which approaches this issue from a different level, but I am going to work with Senator Whitehouse, and I think this is a very important amendment.

The bottom line here is that usury and loan-sharking is immoral, it is wrong, and it has got to be prohibited. I know Senator Whitehouse and Senator Merkley are more than aware, there are even Biblical references in both the Old and New Testament to the immorality and the condemnation of usury. We know as a Nation, people look askance at loan sharks.

Let's be honest. What are we talking about here? If a financial institution is charging people who are desperate enough to be buying their groceries, in many cases their basic necessities, on their credit card, 25- or 30-percent interest rates, if that is not usury, if that is not loan sharking, then I don't know what is.

We have introduced legislation that would cap credit card interest rates at 15 percent. Senator Whitehouse is approaching it in another way, which is an interesting way. But the bottom line is that we have to deal with the absurd Marquette ruling which essentially nullifies what every State in the country has done. I think in Vermont we have usury rates at 12 percent. But it doesn't mean anything because of the Marquette decision.

So all over this country, when we have 20 percent of the people in America now paying at least 20 percent interest rates on their credit cards, those people want action. And when we talk about Wall Street reform and we talk about consumer protection, yes, of course, we need a strong, independent financial services consumer protection agency but, more importantly, we need to address this outrage of high credit card interest rates, and the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island would do that.

I think the American people want to see action, and I hope we can work together on the amendment and on my amendment and give people some relief.

If I can pick up from the Senator from Oregon, the reason, for thousands of years, that religious leaders and philosophers have condemned usury, which is what we are talking about today, is that it is basically immoral, according to every major religion on Earth, to tell a desperate person who is in need of a loan that I am going to give you this loan but I am going to charge a very high interest rate. That is condemned by every major religion on Earth as well as every great writer I can think of who addressed that issue.

What I wish to do, I suggest to my friend from Rhode Island, is I want for a moment to read some of the e-mails I received from Vermont dealing with this issue we are attempting to address. You are dealing with it one way. I am trying to deal with it more on a national way. But we both, together, are trying to address this.

Let me give a couple of e-mails that came to me over the last couple of months. This is from Jeffrey, from the State of Vermont:

I was one of those guys who failed to read the fine print.

A couple of years ago my credit card payment got lost in the

mail. By the time I had realized what had happened, they

charged me a $45 late fee and then spiked my interest rate up

to 35 percent. At the time I was in good standing with them.

I desperately tried to get this back on track but after 10 or

12 months of making these crazy payments I had to make a

choice--lose my transportation to work, lose my house--I am a

father of four beautiful children--or stop paying on the

credit card. Now my credit card report has suffered greatly

and, even though it has been over a year, they still harass

me almost daily. This situation has affected every part of my

family and my life.

That is the end of the quote from Jeffrey from Vermont.

This is Ronald from Colchester, VT:

I am writing about my Citi credit card.

I should point out, as my friend from Rhode Island knows, that the four largest financial institutions in this country issue 66 percent, two-thirds, of the credit cards in the country.

I am writing about my Citi credit card. My interest rate

went from 12 percent to 29.9 percent overnight. I phoned them

and was told it was not just myself paying that rate, but

everyone pays that rate. How can credit card companies let

you make purchases on your account for a moderate interest

rate and just mysteriously move to 29.9 percent overnight? I

hope you are able to pass your law to restrict credit card

companies from abusing their power over their customers.

I have gotten many e-mails and I am sure you have as well. The bottom line is what we are saying is we intend to end this outrageous practice on the part of huge banks that are ripping off the American people. What Senator Whitehouse is trying to do is say let us go back to the federalist principles of this country where States have established their own interest rate caps, and let's enforce that.

We are taking a little bit different position. But both of us are going to do everything we can to end this outrage and I applaud the Senator from Rhode Island for his hard work on this.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, since the beginning of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve, the Fed, has provided over $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed loans and other financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the world. Let me repeat that: over $2 trillion--with a ``t''--$2 trillion.

Over a year ago, as a member of the Budget Committee, I asked Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Fed, a very simple question--very simple question; it could not be simpler--and the question, in so many words, was: Mr. Bernanke, you lent out $2 trillion. Who got that money? Who received the money? What were the terms of those loans?

Mr. Bernanke's answer was: No; I am not going to tell you, Senator Sanders. I am not going to tell the Budget Committee, and I am not going to tell the American people.

I think that is outrageous. I think when $2 trillion of taxpayers' money is placed at risk, the American people have a right to know. How many debates have we had on the floor of the Senate about legislation dealing with $5 million, $30 million, with feverish debate--whether it is a good idea or a bad idea--and now you are looking at trillions of dollars of taxpayer money being placed at risk, and we do not know who received that. That, to me, is an outrage and that, to me, is unacceptable.

On that very day, after Ben Bernanke denied the American people the right to know who received those loans, I introduced legislation requiring the Fed to put that information on their Web site.

The Presiding Officer knows as well as I do, millions of lives have been ruined by the greed, the recklessness, and the illegal behavior of Wall Street. While the Fed was providing secret loans, at virtually no interest, to some of the largest financial institutions in this country, millions of Americans were losing their jobs, their homes, their life savings, their ability to send their kids to college--as a direct result of the same Wall Street firms the Fed was propping up.

So you have a situation where all over this country families are suffering, small- and medium-sized businesses are in desperate need of affordable loans. Yet you have the Fed providing trillions of dollars to the people who caused the recession and to some of the wealthiest and most powerful CEOs in the country.

The very least we can do for the American people is to tell them, to give them the information as to who got bailed out by the Fed. I do not think that is too much to ask. We have to explore whether there were conflicts of interest. How does it work when financial institutions get huge amounts of zero or near zero interest loans? Who sits on the committee? Are there conflicts of interest?

We have to know, for example, what I believe to be the case: that some of those financial institutions that received billions in zero or near zero interest loans may have invested that money in T-bills, in Treasury bonds, earning 3 or 4 percent interest. What kind of scam is that? You get zero interest loans from the Fed, and you invest in government-backed T bonds at 3 or 4 percent interest. That is an incredible scam. Did some of those financial institutions do that? I suspect they did. But we do not know what they did with that money and we have a right to find out.

Let us be very clear: The money put at risk does not belong to the Fed. It belongs to the American people. The American people have a right to know where their taxpayer dollars are going. Therefore, during the debate on financial reform, I will be offering an amendment to audit the Federal Reserve and to require that the Fed release all the details regarding the more than $2 trillion in virtually zero interest loans the Fed has provided to large financial institutions since the beginning of the economic crisis.

We talk a lot around here about the need for bipartisanship or tripartisanship. I am an Independent.

Well, this amendment does that. I do not know that there is any amendment out there that has more bipartisan support. This amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Feingold, Leahy, Wyden, Dorgan, and Boxer; Democrats. It is being cosponsored by Senators DeMint, McCain, Grassley, Vitter, Brownback, Graham, Risch, and Wicker; Republicans. But, quite significantly, on the base bill I introduced, from which this amendment comes, this legislation is being supported by 32 cosponsors; that is, 22 Republicans and 10 Democrats, and they run the gamut from some of the most conservative Members of the Senate to some of the most progressive.

The Senators who are supporting the base bill are Senators Barrasso, Bennett, Boxer, Brownback, Burr, Cardin, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Crapo, DeMint, Dorgan, Feingold, Graham, Grassley, Harkin, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Landrieu, Leahy, Lincoln, McCain, Murkowski, Risch, Thune, Vitter, Webb, Wicker, and Wyden.

That is a very broad cross-section of the Senate, from some of the most conservative to some of the most progressive Members on the base bill, who say it is absurd that the Fed could lend out trillions of dollars without the American people knowing who has received that money.

Let me tell you what our amendment would do, and it is pretty simple. No. 1, it would require the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to conduct an independent and comprehensive audit of the Fed within 1 year. Secondly, it would require the Fed to disclose the names of the financial institutions that received over $2 trillion in virtually zero interest loans since the start of the recession. That is it. That is the whole amendment. Pretty simple. I would hope and expect we would have widespread bipartisan support for this amendment when it gets to the floor.

This amendment also has widespread community support from organizations all over this country. It has the support of Americans for Financial Reform--a coalition of over 250 consumer, employee, investor, community, and civil rights groups, including the AFL-CIO and the AARP.

I should also mention that increasing transparency at the Fed is obviously something the American people want to see, and poll after poll suggests that.

This amendment is similar to the Federal Reserve Transparency Act that was introduced in the House by Congressman Ron Paul and now has 320 bipartisan cosponsors. That is a lot. There are 435 Members of the House, and 320 are on the House bill. A version of that bill passed the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43 to 28 and was incorporated into the financial reform bill that passed the House last December. So not only do we have widespread bipartisan support in the Senate, that same type of support exists in the House.

Last year, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said Congress should ask the Fed to put this information ``on the Internet like they've done with the recovery package and the budget.'' That is exactly what this amendment would do. Interestingly enough, not only do we have widespread bipartisan support in the Congress, not only has the House moved vigorously on this issue already, but, importantly, the courts have ruled in support of what we are trying to do.

Bloomberg News has been very aggressive on this issue, and they have won court decisions requiring the Fed to release this information to the public. But despite widespread congressional support, despite two court decisions, the Fed continues to resist the transparency which our country desperately needs.

As long as the Fed is allowed to keep the information on their loans secret, we may never know the true financial condition of the banking system. This has resulted in a whole myriad of problems, and I think it is time we brought some sunshine to the goings on of the Fed.

Let me conclude by saying this: The American people are outraged, regardless of their political views, by the behavior of Wall Street. They have seen the greed of Wall Street lead us into a recession in which millions of jobs have been lost, homes have been lost, savings have been lost, families have been destroyed, and they want to make sure we do everything we can to make sure what caused this terrible recession never happens again.

I think one of the most important things we can do in terms of Wall Street reform is to bring transparency to the Fed. So this is an incredibly simple amendment. This is an amendment that has grassroots support. This is an amendment that has support from the most progressive and conservative Members of the Congress.

When I bring up this amendment, I certainly hope we can get a great deal of support from Members of the Senate.

I am very pleased to yield to my friend from Illinois.

I thank my friend from Illinois for raising that question. I wish to congratulate him because our colleagues should know he has been a leader on this issue for many years and has already achieved some significant success.

My memory is, we had payday lenders that, if you can believe this, were charging men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces--who, in many cases, do not have a lot of money, who are trying to take care of their families--outrageously high interest rates on check cashing and payday loans. The Senator from Illinois led the effort successfully to put a cap on that, and I thank him very much for doing that. That is a start.

But, clearly, as the Senator from Illinois indicates, we have to go further. Here is the story. Just a couple weeks ago, there was a rally, right here on Capitol Hill, led by religious groups--religious groups-- who said it is immoral and unacceptable that in the United States of America we are now seeing usury and loan sharking taking place by some of the largest financial institutions in this country. So we are not just talking, I would say to my friend from Illinois, about an economic issue; we are talking about a basically moral issue. If one reads the Bible, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, every major religion on this planet has said that usury is immoral; that if you are desperate and you need money, I cannot charge you outrageously high interest rates. That is immoral and the wrong thing to do. Yet in this country today, as a result of a Supreme Court decision some years ago, we have millions of Americans who are paying 25, 30, 35, 40 percent interest rates. This is not from loan shark gangsters on a street corner in Chicago; this is from some of the largest, most distinguished financial institutions in the world. We have to put an end to that.

I would tell my friend from Illinois that the legislation we have offered would put a cap of 15 percent, except under extraordinary circumstances, on the interest rates banks can charge the American people. We came up with this idea because this is what credit unions in this country have been doing for several decades, and they have been doing it successfully.

The Senator from Illinois is, of course, absolutely right. The point the Senator from Illinois is making, which makes eminent sense, is if our friends disagree, if our friends want to offer an amendment, if the Republicans want to alter the bill, that is their right. That is what the Senate is about. But we can't proceed or go forward in putting a cap on the outrageous interest rates financial institutions are charging the American people--the loan sharking-- unless we get this bill going. We can't talk about Fed transparency unless we get this bill going.

So I certainly agree with my friend from Illinois. People have a right to disagree, but the American people are disgusted and frustrated with what is going on on Wall Street. They want action. So to simply have our Republican friends saying: No, no, no, we are not going forward, doesn't make any sense to me.

Madam President, my friend from Illinois is exactly right. Let me just add to it. We have the House of Representatives that voted to go forward. We have the President of the United States who wants to go forward. We have 57, or whatever the number is, Senators who wish to go forward. Now is the time to go forward.

I would add to what my friend from Illinois has just said. Let's be very clear about this. Last year, in 2009, as I understand it, our friends on Wall Street who are doing everything they can to make sure Congress does nothing to reform the way they do business--that is what they want; let's be clear about it--do you know what they spent last year? I would tell my friend from Illinois that my understanding is they spent $300 million on lobbying and campaign contributions.

I know my friend from Illinois knows that we can't walk around the Capitol without bumping in to one or another lobbyist representing Wall Street. Why are they here? Why are they representing hedge fund managers who make billions of dollars in a year? They want to be able to continue to do the exact same things they have done in the past which has led to this terrible recession.

So let's not be naive. There are huge amounts of money flooding Capitol Hill right now, and the goal is, no matter what anybody may say: Let's do no Wall Street reform.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Illinois for his continued efforts on Wall Street reform and the excellent work he has done.

Mr. President, let me begin by commending my friend from North Dakota, expressing my agreement of virtually everything he said.

Mr. President, if my friend will yield for a few minutes, I understand my friend from New Hampshire had something to say.

Mr. President, I will do what I can in 3 minutes.

My good friend from New Hampshire, my colleague from across the Connecticut River, apparently does not have a problem with the fact that the largest financial institutions in this country that we bailed out because of their recklessness, greed, and illegal behavior have, since the bailout, become even larger. Three out of the four major financial institutions, all of which were bailed out, have become larger. No matter what anybody tells you, when one of these institutions is about to tip over and take a good part of the economy with them, despite the rhetoric today, people are going to be bailing them out, and they are going to lose millions of jobs if we don't.

The reality is, we have a situation now where the top six banks in this country, despite what the Senator from New Hampshire has suggested, now have total assets in excess of 63 percent of GDP. We are talking over $7 trillion. When you have six institutions with 63 percent of total assets compared to GDP, I think we have a problem, and we have a problem for two reasons. No. 1, we have a problem in terms of taxpayer liability and the fact that we will, once again, have to bail these behemoths out. Secondly, as Teddy Roosevelt told us 100-plus years ago, it is time to break up these guys because they have incredible concentration of ownership over our entire economy.

It is incomprehensible to me that the Senator from New Hampshire can be

comfortable as a conservative--doesn't like big government but apparently doesn't mind huge financial institutions.

So I think that anyone who is not worried about the concentration of ownership within our financial institutions is missing an enormously important point, not just from too big to fail but economic concentration of ownership.

With that, I thank my friend from Connecticut and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am disappointed but not surprised that our Republican colleagues have chosen not to go forward in terms of financial reform because we should be very clear that when we do financial Wall Street reform, we are taking on not only the most powerful people in the United States of America but some of the most powerful people in the world--people of endless resources.

When Congress deregulated Wall Street, against my vote, Wall Street and their allies, over a 10-year period, spent $5 billion fighting for deregulation so they could be in a position to do anything they wanted, which was, of course, what brought us the terrible recession we are currently in. Last year alone, in 2009, the financial interests spent $300 million in lobbying, campaign contributions, in order to fight finance and Wall Street reform. So I am not surprised that at this point our Republican friends have not chosen to go forward. I hope they change their mind, and I hope they know back home the American people are profoundly disgusted at the behavior of Wall Street, and they want to make sure we never again will be placed in the position of having to bail out people who, through their greed and recklessness, have brought suffering to tens and tens of millions of Americans.

As we proceed--and I believe we will proceed--to Wall Street reform, it is also important we not just pass something for the sake of a press release but we do something substantive. There are a lot of issues out there. I know Senator Dodd has brought forth a bill with 1,600 pages in it. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of important issues. I want to touch on simply three that I believe are essential if we are going to be serious--underline ``serious''--about Wall Street reform.

Issue No. 1. I receive calls every week from Vermonters--and I suspect the Presiding Officer does from people in New Hampshire--who are disgusted by having to pay 25-, 30-, 35-percent interest rates on their credit cards. In my view, usury is immoral. If you look at Christianity or Judaism or Islam or any of the major religions, they make the point that charging outrageous interest rates to desperate people is immoral.

We finally have to end usury in the United States. We have to put a cap on the interest rates that financial institutions can charge when they issue credit cards. The amendment I will be bringing before the floor is similar to what has existed for several decades now for credit unions. Credit unions today are doing just fine, but they cannot charge more than 15-percent interest rates, except under exceptional circumstances. If it is good for credit unions, it is good, in my view, for Wall Street and large financial institutions.

Second of all, I think there is great skepticism about the role of the Fed and the lack of transparency that exists in the Federal Reserve. About a year ago, Chairman Bernanke came before the Budget Committee on which I serve and I asked him a pretty simple question. I said: Mr. Chairman, you have lent out trillions--underline ``trillions''--of dollars in zero or near-zero interest loans to the largest financial institutions in America. Could you please tell me and the American people who received those trillions of dollars in loans?

I do not think that was a terribly unfair question to ask. Mr. Bernanke said: No, I am not going to tell you. He gave me his reasons why. I disagreed. The American people have a right to know who received those loans. The American people have a right to know whether some of those large financial institutions took those zero-percent interest loans and then went out and bought government bonds, T bonds, at 3- percent interest, which, if true--as I suspect it is--is a huge scam, a huge scam. So we need transparency in the Fed, and I am going to bring an amendment to the floor to do that.

The third point I want to make is, in, I believe, November of 2009 I introduced legislation--three pages--very simple legislation, which called for breaking up large financial institutions. As this bill proceeds, my colleagues Senator Brown and Senator Kaufman are going to be offering a bill along those lines, which basically says if an institution is so large that its collapse will bring systemic damage to the entire economy, we have to start breaking up those institutions-- break them up. If a financial institution is too big to fail, in my view, it is too big to exist.

The issue here is not just the liability, the potential liability for the taxpayers of this country if a large financial institution collapses and we have to bail them out, it is also an economic issue. Are we comfortable when, according to Simon Johnson, the former chief economist of the IMF, ``as a result of the crisis and various government rescue efforts, the largest six banks in our economy now have total assets in excess of 63 percent of GDP. . . . This is a significant increase from even 2006. . . .''

I find it quite interesting the senior Senator from New Hampshire was on the floor a little while ago attacking me because in the Budget Committee I brought up a resolution which lost 12 to 10 to begin to break up these large financial institutions. I get a little bit tired of our conservative friends who say: Oh, the government cannot do anything. We hate big government. But apparently they do not hate large financial institutions, six of which have assets equivalent to over 60 percent of the GDP of this country.

Teddy Roosevelt, a good Republican, over 100 years ago started breaking up large financial institutions, large corporations. What we are talking about now is a handful of corporations, of financial institutions that play a very negative role in creating a stranglehold and a lack of competition in our entire economy. I intend to be strongly supporting the amendment brought forth by Senator Brown and Senator Kaufman. I think it is moving exactly in the right direction.

So I am disappointed but not surprised that the Republicans have not chosen to go forward on Wall Street reform. I hope they will reconsider that. When we do go forward, I hope we listen to the American people, we take serious action, and we start the process of standing up to some of the most powerful people not only in this country but in the world.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes and that I be followed by Senator Burris for 5 minutes, at which point the Senate will recess for the party caucuses.

Mr. President, a front-page story of the New York Times today points to the fact of the enormous power of big money in terms of financial reform. They say:

With so much money at stake, it is not surprising that more

than 1,500 lobbyists, executives, bankers and others have

made their way to the Senate committee that on Wednesday will

take up legislation to rein in derivatives. . . .

When Congress deregulated Wall Street and allowed them to do pretty much anything they wanted to do--which brought us to where we are today; i.e., a massive recession--they spent, over a 10-year period, $5 billion--$5 billion--in order to work their way on Congress.

Last year, as we began to address financial reform, they spent $300 million. So the issue we are debating now is not whether Congress will regulate Wall Street, it is whether Congress will continue to be regulated by Wall Street.

Their power is extraordinary. Their money is unlimited. If there was ever a time in American history where the Senate had to start standing up to big money interests and represent the needs of ordinary Americans, this is the time. The American people are looking.

Let me just touch on four issues that I think are key, if we are serious--underline ``serious''--about financial reform.

No. 1, we have to break up the huge financial institutions which are at the cause of the crisis we are in and which exert so much power over our economy. The four major U.S. banks--Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo--issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, write half of the mortgages, and collectively hold $7.4 trillion in assets, about 52 percent of the Nation's estimated total output last year. Despite the fact that we bailed these banks out because they were too big to fail, incredibly, three out of four of these institutions are now larger today than they were when we bailed them out.

Enough is enough. I am joined as a progressive by many conservatives who understand that we cannot continue to have that concentration of ownership, not just in terms of the liability to the American people in terms of too big to fail but in terms of their monopoly control on the entire economy. So if we are serious about financial reform, now is the time to start breaking up these behemoths that exhibit certain enormous impacts on our whole economy.

No. 2, we have to end the absurdity of a Wall Street selling trillions of dollars in exotic financial tools, instruments, at the same time small and medium-sized businesses are unable to get the loans they need in order to create the jobs our country desperately is in need of. At a time when we are in the midst of a major recession, at a time when we are losing our competitive advantages in the global economy, it is absolutely absurd that our largest financial institutions continue to trade trillions in esoteric financial institutions which make Wall Street the largest gambling casino in the world. We need to have them start investing in the real economy, the productive economy, in small and medium-sized businesses, in transforming our energy system and helping us rebuild our infrastructure, and in transportation and other desperate needs. They can no longer live isolated from the real world and engage in bets on whether oil is going to go up 6 months from now or whether the housing market goes down.

If we are serious about real financial reform, we need to pass national usury legislation. I get calls every week from Vermonters who are sick and tired of paying 25-percent or 30-percent interest rates on their credit cards. Every major religion points out that usury is immoral. It is wrong to charge people outrageously high interest rates when they are in desperate need. We need national usury legislation. I will be offering an amendment which will cap at 15 percent the amount financial institutions can charge on credit cards, which is exactly what exists for credit unions today.

Lastly, if we are serious about real financial reform, we need transparency at the Federal Reserve. The Fed cannot continue to operate in almost total secrecy. During the bailout, large financial institutions received trillions of dollars in zero or near-zero interest loans. Who received those loans and what were the terms? The Fed is not telling the American people. Did some of those banks turn around and in a mammoth welfare scam invest that Fed money, zero- interest money, in government Treasury bonds at 3 percent or 4 percent? The Fed is not telling us the answer to that question as well. It is time we had transparency at the Fed so the American people know what our Central Bank is doing.

Most of all, we need to end the ``heads bankers win, tails everybody else loses'' financial system that currently exists in the United States today. The American people are profoundly disgusted with the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street. They cannot understand how the very same people who created this recession in which millions of workers have lost their jobs, people have lost their homes, people have lost their savings, that these very same people are now receiving multimillion dollar bonuses. People don't understand that, nor do I, in fact. So we need a new Wall Street. We need real financial reform. I hope, in fact, that the

Senate and the House are prepared to stand up to the very powerful special interests who do not want us to do that.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.