Mr. President, first, I rise to speak in support of the Boxer amendment, which sends a strong statement that no taxpayer funds will ever again be used to bail out the risky gambles that too many on Wall Street have conducted. It should…
Mr. President, first, I rise to speak in support of the Boxer amendment, which sends a strong statement that no taxpayer funds will ever again be used to bail out the risky gambles that too many on Wall Street have conducted. It should pass with 100 votes.
Also, I want to speak about the derivatives title, which is a bipartisan product that was reported out of the Agriculture Committee 2 weeks ago. Specifically, there have been statements in the press and in the Senate Chamber that I believe need to be corrected regarding section 716.
As chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I am proud to have included this provision in the Wall Street reform legislation approved on a bipartisan vote by our committee 2 weeks ago. I am also proud that it is included in the Dodd-Lincoln legislation that we are now considering today.
This provision seeks to ensure that banks get back to the business of banking. Under our current system, there are a handful of big banks that are simply no longer acting like banks. By this time, surely every Member of this body is aware that the operation of risky swaps activities was the spark that lit the flame that very nearly destroyed our economy in this great country.
In my view, banks were never intended to perform these activities, which have been the single largest factor to these institutions growing so large that taxpayers had no choice but to bail them out in order to prevent total economic ruin.
My provision seeks to accomplish two goals: first, getting banks back to performing the duties they were meant to perform--taking deposits and making loans for mortgages, small businesses, and commercial enterprise; second, separating the activities that put these institutions in peril.
This provision makes clear that engaging in risky derivatives dealing is not central to the business of banking. Under section 716, the Federal Reserve and FDIC will be prohibited from providing any Federal assistance and funds to bail out swap dealers and major swap participants.
Currently, five of the largest commercial banks account for 97 percent of the commercial bank national swap activity. That is a huge concentration of economic power, which is why I am in no way surprised that several individuals are seeking to remove it from the bill.
This provision will ensure that our community banks on Main Street would not pay the price for reckless behavior on Wall Street. Community banks are the backbone of economic activity for cities and towns throughout this great land. They don't deal in risky swaps that put the whole financial institution in jeopardy. Instead, they perform the day- to-day business of banking, making the smart, conservative decisions that banking institutions should be making.
Unfortunately, we saw the five largest banks begin to fail in part because of that risky swap activity--activity
that should never have been part of their operation in the first place. Sadly, it was community bankers and their depositors who were left footing the bill.
Community banks were forced to pay for a problem they didn't create. Small banks are still paying that price. In 2009, we saw 140 bank failures, and now the cost of the FDIC insurance premiums are skyrocketing for our community banks all across the country. Higher insurance rates means less lending.
Less lending means that now individuals and small businesses are also paying the price. The FDIC reported that in 2009 the banking industry reduced lending by 7.4 percent, the biggest decrease since 1942.
I am a strong believer that you build an economic recovery from the ground up. If small and medium-sized businesses aren't getting the capital they need to grow their businesses, something is wrong. The economy simply will not recover unless we free up lending.
Unfortunately, Wall Street lobbyists are doing everything they can to distort this provision--spreading misinformation and untruths. The suggestion that this provision will force derivatives into the dark without oversight is absolutely false. The Dodd-Lincoln bill makes it abundantly clear all swaps activity will be vigorously regulated by the Fed, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
My good friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, my friend from Tennessee, Mr. Corker, Wall Street lobbyists, and others in recent days have somehow argued that by pushing out risky swaps from the Nation's largest banks, such as J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup, somehow swaps will no longer be regulated. This is just plain wrong.
Just because these swaps desks will no longer be overseen by the FDIC does not mean that they will not be subject to this bill's strong regulation by the market regulators--the SEC and the CFTC. In short, they ignore the strong provisions included in the rest of the underlying bill. That is convenient for their argument but not so convenient when seeking the truth.
Let me reiterate: Every swaps dealer and major swaps participant will be subject to strong regulation.
Wall Street lobbyists have also argued that this will prevent banks from using swaps to hedge their risks. Again, that is completely false. Banks that have been acting as banks will be able to continue doing business as they always have. Community banks using swaps to hedge their interest rate risk on their loan portfolio will continue to be able to do so. Most important, we want them to do so. Community banks offering a swap in connection with a loan to a commercial customer are also still in the business of banking and will not be impacted.
Using these products to manage risk or designing exotic swaps which have led to the financial demise of places such as Jefferson County, Alabama; Orange County, California; and the country of Greece are two very different things. Hopefully, this is something my colleagues will understand.
Wall Street lobbyists have also said this provision will move $300 trillion worth of swap activities outside of the banks. My question is, Why is this activity there in the first place? I agree that regulated, transparent swap activity is a necessary part of our economy in managing risk. It just has no place inside a bank where too many innocent bystanders are put at risk.
Despite what those on Wall Street may be saying, this provision is an important part of real Wall Street reform. It has broad support from the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Consumer Federation of America, the AARP, labor unions, and leading economists, such as Nobel Prize-winning Joseph Stiglitz, among others.
Let me read what a few of these groups and individuals are saying about this provision.
Americans for Financial Reform, which includes groups such as the AFL-CIO, NAACP, and Consumers Union, writes:
The over 250 consumer, employee, investor, community and
civil rights groups who are members of the Americans for
Financial Reform write to express strong support for section
716 ("Prohibition Against Federal Government Bailouts of
Swaps Entities'') as part of the Dodd-Lincoln substitute to
the Restoring Financial Stability Act of 2010.
It is now almost universally recognized that the fuse that lit the worldwide economic meltdown in the fall of 2008 was the $600 trillion severely undercapitalized and unregulated and opaque swaps market dominated by the world's largest banks. Section 716 is designed to ensure that the American taxpayer is not the banker of last resort, as was true in the bank bailouts in 2008 and 2009, for casino-like investments marketed by large Wall Street swap dealer-banks. Section 716 is a flat ban on Federal Government assistance to ``any swap entity,'' especially in instances where that entity cannot fulfill obligations emanating from highly risky swaps transactions.
By quarantining highly risky swaps trading from banking altogether, federally insured deposits will not be put at risk by toxic swaps transactions. Moreover, banks will be forced to behave like banks, focusing on extending credit in a manner that builds economic strength as opposed to fostering worldwide economic instability.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration, Joseph Stiglitz, writes:
One provision holds particular promise--and has the banks
especially riled up. This is the idea that the government
should not be responsible for the ``counterparty risk''--the
risk that a derivatives contract not be fulfilled. It was
AIG's inability to fulfill its obligations that led the U.S.
Government to step into the breach, to the tune of $182
billion.
The modest proposal of the Agriculture Committee is that
the U.S. Government (the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation) stops underwriting these risks. If banks wish to
write those derivatives, they would have to do so through a
separate affiliate within the holding company. And if the
bank made bad gambles, the taxpayer wouldn't have to pick up
the tab.
Here is another from the Independent Community Bankers of America:
ICBA strongly supports section 106--
Which is a section in our bill--
of the derivatives bill. This section prohibits federal
assistance, including federal deposit insurance and access to
the Fed's discount window, to swaps entities in connection
with their trading in swaps or securities-based swaps.
Main Street and community banks have suffered the brunt of
the financial crisis, a crisis caused by Wall Street players
and not community banks. Assessments to replenish the Deposit
Insurance Fund have increased dramatically for community
banks. Large financial players have received hundreds of
billions in financial assistance while community banks have
been allowed to fail.
Section 106 of Senator Lincoln's derivatives legislation
would be an important provision to help ensure that taxpayers
and community banks are not on the chopping block should
another financial crisis occur. We strongly urge retention of
this provision during markup this week. Thank you for keeping
the views of the community bankers in mind.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these three letters from the Americans for Financial Reform, Professor Stiglitz, and the Independent Community Bankers.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure this legislation remains strong and new loopholes are not created on behalf of Wall Street.
This is a legislative body. It is designed for debate, and I welcome that debate and welcome the debate of my colleagues in terms of what we are trying to do here.
We have seen a historic economic crisis. Banks no longer look like banks, and for people in my hometowns across Arkansas, that is a frightening thing. The status quo is certainly not acceptable.
We all have to look at what it is we can do to come together with some type of assurance and confidence for the people of our States that we are not going to let the status quo remain. I believe we need to take the necessary steps to create that confidence for investors and consumers that what we experienced will not be able to happen again; that these financial entities cannot become so big that they cannot fail or that we would not allow them to fail or, worst of all, that taxpayers will have to bail them out again.
I say to my colleagues, I am a very pragmatic person, pretty simplistic in what it is I want to achieve and what we have worked to achieve. I hope all of my colleagues will continue to work together to find out what it is we can responsibly hand to the people of this great country and say to them: We not only have seen what has happened, but we are going to dare to produce something that will ensure it does not happen again. As I said, working in a pragmatic way, I think we can come up with a good, strong piece of legislation, that all of us-- Democrats and Republicans, no matter what regions of the country we come from--will actually say to the American people: We saw what happened, and we are going to make sure it does not happen again.