Mr. Sanders. Madam President, I Ask Unanimous Consent That The Order For The Quorum Call Be Rescinded

Floor Speech

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SANDERS. 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.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Vermont yield for a question?

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Vermont, through the Chair, about another issue in this bill relative to the interest rates that are being charged across America. I would like to ask the Senator from Vermont if he would tell me his take or evaluation of the provision in this bill which exempts usury laws and interest rates from the consideration of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

I know the Presiding Officer has an interest in some exploitation that is occurring in her State of North Carolina--frankly, in my State of Illinois, and probably across this Nation--by the so-called payday loan and title loan operations, where average people who are struggling economically go in for high-interest loans that are then rolled over, time and time and time again, until they lose whatever security has been offered for the loan and, frankly, find themselves even deeper in debt.

I would like to ask the Senator from Vermont, whom I have discussed this with on many occasions, his thoughts about consumer financial protections and the interest rates being charged across this Nation.

Mr. SANDERS. 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.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to ask through the Chair again--first, I wish to give credit where it is due. The original amendment we talked about that protects military families was offered by Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, and I supported it and everyone supported it because we found men and women in the military trained to defend our country who signed up for these payday loans and quick loans, and they became so deeply mired in debt they were forced to leave military service. So we said as a matter of national security, we can't sacrifice well-trained men and women who can keep us safe as a nation to loan sharks who have these storefront operations in my hometown of Springfield and in your hometown in Vermont and all across the Nation.

I would say to the Senator from Vermont--and he and I have joked about this a little bit--I tried to come up with a number to say this will be the maximum interest rate that can be charged. I went to a mutual friend whom I respect and said: What is a number that no one can argue with? She said 36 percent. When I mentioned that number to people back in Illinois and other places, they were aghast. They said: We don't want to pay 36 percent for anything. I said: I don't either. But this is like a ceiling.

Well, it turned out it is a little more confusing than illuminating. I happen to think the Senator from Vermont is certainly right with the cap he is suggesting.

Now, is it not true, I ask the Senator from Vermont, as this rollcall vote reflects, if the Republican Senators in this Chamber continue this filibuster against this financial reform bill, this Wall Street reform bill, this consumer financial protection bill, we can't even engage in this debate, let alone this amendment, to try to protect families across America from being preyed upon by these outrageous reptilian credit operations?

Mr. SANDERS. 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.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would ask the Senator from Vermont through the Chair, as informative and as entertaining as our presentations are on the floor, the fact is, 98 chairs are empty on the Senate floor, chairs that could be filled with Members of the Senate from both political parties debating the issues we are talking about; actually voting on amendments, proposing changes in the law to ultimately work with the House and send it to the President to solve some of the problems of our Nation. But as long as we are facing--and we have had three filibuster votes so far this week with more to follow--as long as we are facing this Republican filibuster where not one single Republican Senator will break with the Republican caucus or the Wall Street position that opposes any reform, we can't even bring this bill to the floor for debate so we can address the biggest economic and financial challenge America has faced in decades.

Mr. SANDERS. 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.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding for questions. I yield the floor and unless someone----

Mr. SANDERS. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source