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 Madam President, I Ask Unanimous Consent That The Order For The Quorum Call Be Rescinded

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source