[Congressional Record: May 11, 2010 (Senate)]
[Page S3488-S3496]
RESTORING AMERICAN FINANCIAL STABILITY ACT OF 2010
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 3217, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3217) to promote the financial stability of the
United States by improving accountability and transparency in
the financial system, to end ``too big to fail,'' to protect
the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect
consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for
other purposes.
Pending:
Reid (for Dodd-Lincoln) amendment No. 3739, in the nature
of a substitute.
Sanders-Dodd modified amendment No. 3738 (to amendment No.
3739), to require the nonpartisan Government Accountability
Office to conduct an independent audit of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System that does not
interfere with monetary policy, to let the American people
know the names of the recipients of over $2,000,000,000,000
in taxpayer assistance from the Federal Reserve System.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 3760 to Amendment No. 3739
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I call up the Vitter amendment which is
at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself, Mr.
DeMint, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. McCain, Mr. Bunning, Mr.
Crapo, and Mr. Risch, proposes an amendment numbered 3760 to
amendment No. 3739.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To address availability of information concerning the
meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee, and for other purposes)
At the end of title XI, add the following:
SEC. 1159. AUDITS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift
Supervision.'' and inserting ``and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking all after ``has
consented in writing.'' and inserting the following: ``Audits
of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal reserve banks shall
not include unreleased transcripts or minutes of meetings of
the Board of Governors or of the Federal Open Market
Committee. To the extent that an audit deals with individual
market actions, records related to
[[Page S3489]]
such actions shall only be released by the Comptroller
General after 180 days have elapsed following the effective
date of such actions.'';
(3) in subsection (c)(1), in the first sentence, by
striking ``subsection,'' and inserting ``subsection or in the
audits or audit reports referring or relating to the Federal
Reserve Board or Reserve Banks,''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Audit and Report of the Federal Reserve System.--
``(1) In general.--An audit of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks
under subsection (b) shall be completed not later than 12
months after the date of enactment of the Restoring American
Financial Stability Act of 2010.
``(2) Report.--
``(A) Required.--A report on the audit referred to in
paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General
to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning
on the date on which such audit is completed and made
available to--
``(i) the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
``(ii) the majority and minority leaders of the House of
Representatives;
``(iii) the majority and minority leaders of the Senate;
``(iv) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and
each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of
Representatives and the Senate; and
``(v) any other Member of Congress who requests it.
``(B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall
include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion
of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is
the subject of the report.
``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed--
``(A) as interference in or dictation of monetary policy to
the Federal Reserve System by the Congress or the Government
Accountability Office; or
``(B) to limit the ability of the Government Accountability
Office to perform additional audits of the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System or of the Federal reserve
banks.''.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator controls 20 minutes.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask that the Chair notify me after 15
minutes has been used.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be notified.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have called up Vitter amendment No.
3760, which is verbatim, word for word, the Ron Paul language that was
added to the House bill in committee by a strong bipartisan vote.
In doing so, I also ask unanimous consent to add the following
Senators as cosponsors: Senators DeMint, Grassley, Hatch, McCain,
Bunning, Crapo, and Risch.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, on the Senate side, I have been a strong
cosponsor and supporter of S. 604 and Senator Sanders' amendment on
this bill. I present this different amendment because Senator Sanders
decided to modify his amendment late last week, and I thought there was
a continuing need to have this language exactly as it now appears in
the House bill, as it was included in the House bill by a strong
bipartisan vote in the house committee.
First, let me say I support the Sanders amendment. I will vote for
it. It is a very important and useful look in the rearview mirror, if
you will, a one-time audit of significant Federal Reserve activity,
particularly in 2008 and 2009. I welcome that.
That should not be the end of the matter, and it should not be
recognized as all we need because it clearly is not. We need to look in
the rearview mirror at those important events. That was a very
significant period. But we also need to look forward because these
events and these debates and these opportunities for bailouts and other
actions absolutely continue. The Vitter amendment addresses that--a
look forward as well as that important one-time look back.
If we needed any reason to think we need this ability to continue to
look forward and look at the detailed provisions of Fed activity, it is
in the news right now--absolutely right now--in terms of the Greek and
European economic crisis.
Although Chairman Bernanke assured Congress in recent testimony that
``we have no plans to be involved in any foreign bailouts or anything
of that sort,'' very recently, in the last few days, the Fed has
announced the opening of significant facilities to central banks in
Europe that certainly involve it, at least at the margin, in that
activity.
I do not know enough about those recent deals and currency exchange
swaps to comment on whether they are a good idea or a bad idea, or to
comment a clear conclusion about the extent to which they put U.S.
taxpayers at risk. But clearly they are a significant event. Clearly,
there is significant action of the Fed. And clearly, they are a perfect
and very recent example of why we need to look in detail at what the
Fed is doing on an ongoing basis.
With Greece, Portugal, and Spain, all possibly on the cusp of
financial crisis, with this significant decision of the Fed, we must go
beyond the Sanders amendment. We must look forward and not just one
time back to ensure the American people that we all know what our
Federal Reserve is doing and exactly why it is doing it.
This Vitter amendment does that. It will bring real reform and
accountability to the Federal Reserve. That is essential, given the
historic, major actions the Fed has undertaken in the last few years
and continues to announce, even as we speak, activities that would not
be covered by the Sanders amendment.
There has been a lot of rhetoric about all of the evil and dangerous
things my amendment would do at the Fed. Let me directly address and
dispel these notions.
First, there has been a lot of suggestion that this will politicize
individual monetary policy decisions; that this will have individual
Members of Congress bringing undue influence on those decisions. I
truly think there are enormous protections in this amendment that will
clearly avoid that situation.
Let's start with the clear language of the amendment:
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.
It is a very clear, very broad, very strong statement. The amendment
goes even farther. The other specific language of the amendment is very
careful to ensure the audits that the amendment will require will not
include unreleased transcripts or minutes of meetings of the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors or of the Federal Open Markets Committee.
In addition to the extent any audit deals with an individual market
action, such as a change in interest rates, the audit will only be
released 180 days after the action occurs.
If this is an attempt for any Members of Congress, any individuals to
control individual decisions, to have a direct impact on an individual
decision, such as an interest rate decision, it is a pretty dumb,
ineffective way to do it because the audit will not be out for half a
year. Clearly, it will have no impact on that decision.
Under these protections, the Federal Reserve will still operate
monetary policy independently, but it is reasonable that those actions,
after an appropriate lag of time in some cases will be transparent,
will be fully understandable and fully open to the American people and
to Congress.
Again, I think it is very important to dispel these notions that are
flying about that are untrue. I have talked with Chairman Bernanke
several times about these proposals. Always, invariably, his stated
concern is the opportunity for an audit to try to impact an individual
decision, such as an interest rate decision. We have addressed that
very directly in the way I explained.
In addition, the GAO cannot review many actions such as discount
window lending--direct loans to financial institutions--open market
operations and any other transactions made under the direction of the
Federal Open Market Committee.
GAO also, under the clear terms of this amendment, cannot look into
the Fed's transactions with foreign governments. This, again, is plenty
of protection against the concerns annunciated prior to this debate and
vote.
What this comes down to is: Do the American people deserve full
information about Federal Reserve decisions or is somehow this beyond
the capability of Congress and the American people to digest?
In Federal Reserve Board minutes that were only recently released--
these minutes go back to 2004--Alan Greenspan said this:
[[Page S3490]]
We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a
particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the
debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of
a process that only we fully understand.
It is somewhat amazing to me, but that is a verbatim, direct quote.
More than any statistic, more than any other quote, more than any fact,
that direct quote is about what this debate and what this amendment is
about.
Is this an area of governance that affects all of our daily lives
that we should leave purely up to the elites without ever having full
transparency and a full opportunity for debate? Alternatively, is this
still America, and do Congress and the American people deserve full
openness?
Let me read this quote again because it goes to the heart of the
issue:
We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a
particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the
debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of
a process that only we fully understand.
If you adopt that offensive, in my opinion, elitist attitude, vote
against the Vitter amendment. If you think we should have much greater
openness and transparency and the opportunity for a full debate, with
all of the protections of the individual, interest rate, and other
decisions I have laid out, please vote for the Vitter amendment.
Again, Madam President, I will support the Sanders amendment. It is
an important and appropriate one-time look back, one-time look in the
rearview mirror about a very important period of time, particularly
2008-2009 when the Fed was busier and more active with more aggressive
policy than ever before. But the opportunity for that aggressive policy
is not over. We see that this week, with the Fed participating with
European national banks in the crisis in Europe. We need this
opportunity on an ongoing basis. We need the Vitter amendment. In
addition, we need a full audit, and with all of the protections
included, we need that opportunity continuing for full openness and
transparency.
Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont. The
Senator controls 20 minutes.
Mr. SANDERS. 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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. SANDERS. 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
[[Page S3491]]
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.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut
controls 20 minutes, the Senator from Alabama controls 20 minutes, the
Senator from Vermont has 8\1/2\ minutes, and the Senator from
Louisiana, 9 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me ask how much time my friend needs?
Mr. GREGG. I would ask for 5 minutes.
Mr. DODD. I yield the Senator from New Hampshire at least 5 minutes,
unless he needs more.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, first off, at this point I congratulate
the Senator from Vermont and express my appreciation for his very
constructive approach to this issue. I had very serious reservations
regarding his original amendment, but he has worked with Members of
this side of the aisle, the chairman of the committee, and members of
the administration and the Fed and has come up with an extremely
responsible amendment.
The Senator's amendment gets to the issues which he is concerned
about, which are totally legitimate; that is, the question of
transparency and making sure, to the fullest extent possible, the
American people know what is happening with this very significant
agency that impacts our lives but which we know little about--a lot of
Americans don't--and that is the Federal Reserve.
I also wish to congratulate Chairman Bernanke--he and his staff--for
stepping forward and aggressively pursuing a resolution to this issue
in a manner which I think will be very positive for both sides.
So I intend to support the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, as
amended, and appreciate his offering it and appreciate his responsible
effort. I do have, however, deep and severe reservations and strongly
oppose the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. The issue here
isn't transparency any longer with the amendment of the Senator from
Louisiana. The issue is whether we have a Federal Reserve which can
function and can pursue its primary purpose, which is maintaining the
integrity of the currency of the United States.
When the Federal Reserve was created back in 1917, there was a huge
debate--a huge debate--raging in this Nation, and had been raging since
the great depressions of 1897 and 1907--about how to manage the
currency of this country. The central figure in that debate was William
Jennings Bryan, a man of immense proportions in our history. He was a
populist in the extreme, and he believed genuinely that there should be
a monetary policy in this country which allowed for free money to be
produced, essentially. His Cross of Gold Speech was, of course,
historic. His view was, basically, those who were in control of the
government--public elected officials--should have control over the
currency. But what had been learned over time was if you turn control
of the currency over to elected officials, the currency becomes at risk
because there is a natural tendency by elected bodies to want to
produce money arbitrarily to take care of spending which they deem to
be in the public interest.
Thanks to the leadership at that time of a number of thoughtful
people, including people such as Woodrow Wilson, the decision was made
to create a separate entity called the Federal Reserve, which would
manage the currency of the United States and decide how much money was
printed. The printing presses would be taken away from elected
officials.
This decision has probably been one of the best decisions we ever
made as a nation in order to determine a strong fiscal future and a
strong economy because it has allowed us to have a currency which has
basically been protected from the winds of the politics of the day.
That is absolutely critical. It is as important today as it was when
the Federal Reserve was created, if not more important today.
We have seen a world where there is a tremendous amount of pressure
on the currencies of almost every nation, certainly every developed
nation with the exception of a few. That pressure inevitably leads to
populist outrage on occasion or to popular decisions which can request
that the currency be devalued in order to produce what some people see
as a better lifestyle or in order to address concerns a nation may
have. But you cannot do that at the whim of elected officials. It is
absolutely critical that the currency of the Nation be protected from
the day-to-day activities of politics.
We have created this Federal Reserve System which accomplishes that.
The essence of that system is the Open Market Committee, which decides
essentially how much money there is going to be in circulation in this
country. We have always believed that system should have integrity, be
kept separate from the political process; that Members of the Congress
should not have the ability, either directly or indirectly, to
influence the decision of the printing of dollars in this Nation. It is
a good decision and we should not abandon that course of action.
Yet the Vitter amendment, couched in all sorts of----
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from New
Hampshire has used the 5 minutes he was yielded.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for 4 minutes out of the time of Senator Shelby.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. The amendment offered by Senator Vitter unfortunately has,
as its essence, the disassembling of this independence. It would give
the Congress the ability, through the GAO--and because the GAO is an
arm of the Congress, our accounting arm--to go in and investigate what
happens with the Open Market Committee. That is clearly going to create
consequences which would be inappropriate in the decisionmaking process
of the Federal Reserve. It would influence their ability to make
decisions in the sense they would be concerned about Congress coming in
and investigating them. It would open activities which, if they are not
done in some level of confidence, inevitably end up disrupting the
markets. So it is absolutely critical that the Congress not be allowed
to go into the Open Market Committee and audit that part of the Federal
Reserve activities--absolutely critical if we are going to maintain the
integrity of the dollar.
Remember, this is about Main Street. Whether that dollar you take on
Main
[[Page S3492]]
Street to buy clothing or food or a car--whether that dollar has the
value you think it has depends entirely on whether there is confidence
it is not going to be inflated arbitrarily. If the political process
starts to influence the decisions as to how much money is printed in
this country and therefore affects the inflationary value of the
dollar, you will see your dollars devalued as you try to buy items on
Main Street. The effect of that will be devastating on your ability as
an American citizen to have confidence in the dollars which you earn
and what they are going to buy and what they are going to mean when you
save them--which is even more important.
We cannot have a system which allows Congress to influence the
decisions in this critical area. All the rest of the activities the
Federal Reserve undertakes should be open, should be audited by the
Congress, and should be available for public inspection on a regular
basis. That is essentially what the amendment of Senator Sanders does.
There is already a lot of audit activity at the Fed, but what it does
is expand that and make it more transparent and more available to the
American people. But in this one area which Congress has specifically
by law exempted from review for the very logical and appropriate reason
that we do not want the politics of the day to influence the decision
as to the value of our currency, in this one area we need to keep the
exception and give the Fed that type of protection.
I strongly oppose the Vitter amendment. I hope those who are
concerned about maintaining the integrity of our currency will also
oppose this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. I yield myself 10 minutes on my time, if I may, and reserve
5, if the Chair will let me know when that time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. DODD. I thank my friend and colleague from New Hampshire. He is
always thoughtful on these issues. I appreciate the history lesson as
well. It is always important that Members understand the genesis and
history of necessary decisions, so it is an important contribution this
morning to what we are trying to achieve. Also, let me say how much I
appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Vermont. Occasionally around
here you get to make a historic contribution. I don't want to engage in
hyperbole, but this is a historic moment the Senator from Vermont has
provided us, to be able to do something we have talked about. I want to
tell my colleague from Vermont not only do I think we are going to
achieve what he wants with his amendment, but we just had a meeting
with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to kind of brief us on these
events in Europe over the weekend, and the Federal Reserve, without
legislation but clearly under the influence of this proposed
legislation, is going to put up on its Web site as soon as possible the
contracts between the Fed and other central banks that occurred over
the past weekend.
It has also committed the Fed will report weekly on the activity of
each of the swaps accounts by the central banks--not in the aggregate,
each one of them. The legislation is going to do a lot, but the Senator
has already had an influence on the conduct of the Fed in terms of the
transparency issues.
I appreciate very much the efforts of Senator Sanders. He is not new
to the issue. He has raised this repeatedly since he became a Member of
this body. I also associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from
New Hampshire regarding the Vitter amendment. Again, the central
question in many ways is exactly as he has described it, and that is
the independence of the central bank, the most important central bank
in the world, to be able to operate devoid of the kind of political
influences that could ultimately change that Federal Reserve Board from
making the kind of decisions that are going to protect the integrity of
our currency.
The Open Market Committee's functioning absolutely is critical. So
this is a well-crafted proposal, in my view, because it goes to the
heart of the issue of transparency, including the requirements now
mandated by the Sanders amendment. The previous incarnation of this
amendment was a request. I think all of us know where requests end up
if there is no will on the other side to engage them. But this now
mandates, in fact--we could have potential conflict of interest
examined as to when these decisions are made.
I point out that our bill today includes language, if adopted, that
will change how the New York Fed president is chosen. Presently he is
chosen by the very institutions that office is designed to regulate. In
a sense, we change all of that because that on its face seems to be an
inherent conflict. When you get to choose your regulator--one of the
complaints we have had, legitimately, about regulatory arbitrage is
that institutions picked their regulator of least resistance and that
contributed to some of the problems we have run into. Under the present
construct, without the changes included in our bill, of course that
goes on. Imagine, if you can sit around and choose your own regulator
if you are lending institutions, financial institutions. That presently
is what happens with regional banks. So the very banks that are the
subject of the Federal regulation decide who the regulator will be. Our
bill changes that as well, and that goes to the heart of exactly what
the Senator from Vermont is talking about.
I urge my colleagues to give strong support to the Sanders amendment.
I am a cosponsor. I don't cosponsor many amendments for the obvious
reason we have a lot of them and I realize some I am supportive of,
maybe not as strongly as others. I am a strong supporter of this
amendment, and I want my name attached to it, and I appreciate the
efforts of my colleague in putting this forward.
I am as strongly in opposition to the Vitter amendment because it
undermines, in effect, what the Sanders amendment accomplishes. That
would be a tragedy, in my view. The fact is we are going to do
something that has been needed to be done for years, and that is to get
the transparency of what occurs at the Federal Reserve, but not
engaging in the kind of damage that could occur--particularly at this
moment.
We all understand. I think we have made the case over and over again
over many days. We are no longer talking about a financial system that
is in jeopardy because of what happens in terms of mismanagement of
major financial institutions. We now know that events thousands of
miles away from our shores, in nation states that have no direct
bearing, necessarily, or are directly affected by decisions we make
here, can cause the kind of disruptions, economically, around the
world. It is that kind of world we live in.
I remember a few years ago a very small exchange, relatively small
exchange in Shanghai, China, had a decline of about 12 percent one
morning. That exchange represented about 5 percent of the volume of the
New York Stock Exchange in Shanghai. Yet that action in that relatively
small exchange caused, within a matter of hours, all over the globe
exchanges to react to it. My point simply being, without going into the
details of what occurred there, events that occur in one part of the
world can have a huge implication here as well.
At this very important moment, to undermine the independence of the
Federal Reserve with the Vitter amendment would do great damage to our
country. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of the Sanders amendment
and then join with Senator Gregg and myself and others in our
opposition to the Vitter amendment because it undercuts exactly what,
in a sense, we are trying to achieve here with this legislation.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask to speak----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DeMINT. I ask to speak under Senator Vitter's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, there are few things more important to
Americans than our money. It represents our life's work, our savings,
our investment. When our Founders put this country and the Constitution
together, they gave the Congress the responsibility to protect our
currency
[[Page S3493]]
and the value of our money. This is a responsibility that decades ago
the Congress delegated to the Federal Reserve, to operate as an
independent institution, responsible for protecting our monetary system
as well as overseeing employment in our country.
Congress has not paid much attention to what the Federal Reserve has
done. In fact, we have little idea now what they are doing. We do know
they are doing many things now that they didn't do even a few years
before--trillions of dollars buying toxic assets from various financial
institutions. We know they are doing business all over the world,
lending money with international banks. But we don't know exactly what
they are doing, why they are doing it, or how they are doing it.
We don't know if a lot of these activities could eventually bring
down our financial system. We need to be concerned because it is our
responsibility as a Congress and if we allow our currency to be
undermined anywhere in the world, it is detrimental to every American
family, everything we worked for, everything we have saved.
We cannot pass this off. This Congress has established other
financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to supposedly
facilitate the mortgage industry and make it easier for people to buy
homes. We were told there was no problem with subprime lending and all
the things Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were involved with. But as a
Congress we did not do our job overseeing, asking enough questions.
Then when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created this huge housing bubble
and brought our economy to its knees, millions of Americans lost much
of what they had worked for and saved.
But what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is small compared
to what could happen if the Federal Reserve did something to undermine
the confidence in the dollar worldwide.
Congress should not be managing our monetary system. I do not think
we can do it in the current political structure. But it is our job to
provide accountability and transparency to what is going on at the
Federal Reserve.
Last week, I spoke in support of the Sanders amendment. I still plan
to support it today, but that amendment has been changed. It narrows
the scope of a complete audit. It really cannot be called a complete
audit anymore. It is just disclosure on various aspects of what the
Federal Reserve does. It does not now include what they would refer to
now as monetary policy. My understanding was, that is pretty much what
they did at the Federal Reserve. Cutting that takes out a big part of
what we need to know about what they are doing. It would block us from
finding out what the Federal Reserve is doing with banks all around the
world. It would block us from finding out a lot of things that could
give us an indication of whether the Federal Reserve is putting our
monetary and financial systems at risk.
I think it is important, at least at one point in time, for us to
find out what the Federal Reserve is doing and disclose it to the
American people in a way that they will have confidence that what is
happening with the Federal Reserve and with our currency is going to
create a stable currency out into the future.
Senator Vitter offered the original amendment before it was changed,
the same amendment that was passed in the House by an overwhelming
majority which will include all aspects of the Federal Reserve--not in
real time, but there will be a delay so that we can't meddle in what
they are doing. But it opens a full audit of the Federal Reserve so
that this Congress can make good decisions about any needed reforms and
certainly keeping some accountability over the Federal Reserve.
It makes absolutely no sense to create really the most powerful
agency in the world over the Reserve currency for the world and for
there to be no accountability over what they are doing. We know they
think we are not smart enough to understand what they are doing, and we
may not be. But based on what they have told us in the past, they are
not necessarily as smart as they think they are either, because only a
few months before Fannie Mae collapsed, the Federal Reserve told us
there was no problem. Now they are telling us there is no problem and
that we don't need to look at what they are doing.
I think it is important that we have full disclosure and
accountability and transparency at the Federal Reserve. It is important
that the American people trust those who are managing their currency,
and right now they don't. A full audit would help restore that trust
and help Congress do its job to oversee the Federal Reserve. The
Federal Reserve can maintain its independence, but it doesn't have to
be independent in secret because if they are operating secretly,
Congress is not doing its job.
I encourage my colleagues to support the Sanders amendment but also
the Vitter amendment so that we will have a full audit and know for the
first time what our Federal Reserve is doing with our money.
I reserve the remainder of Senator Vitter's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SHELBY. I rise today to support the Sanders amendment to bring
transparency to the Federal Reserve. I believe this amendment is needed
because the Federal Reserve has abused its independence. The Federal
Reserve has repeatedly assumed and exercised vast fiscal powers under
the guise of ``monetary policy.'' It has sought to escape
accountability for these actions by claiming that its independence
places it beyond the scope of congressional oversight. To allow any
agency, including the Federal Reserve, to exercise the immense powers
now wielded by the Fed with so little accountability is simply
incompatible with our constitutional system of government.
Congress granted the Federal Reserve independence with respect to
monetary policy on grounds that ``monetary policy'' was a technical,
nonpolitical task that did not put taxpayers at risk. Unfortunately,
the Fed has failed to stay within the limits envisioned by Congress.
Over the past 3 years, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet has exploded
to more than $2.3 trillion, with much of the increase related to
actions that had little to do with monetary policy and more to do with
bailouts, fiscal policy, and plain politics.
Although the Fed likes to pretend it is independent and removed from
politics, the reality here is that the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve is one of the biggest political players in town.
Ironically, while the Fed is fighting this amendment, the Fed remains
silent about other measures that would compromise its independence.
Why? The answer is politics. When it serves its politics, the Fed is
happy to selectively sacrifice its independence. For example, the Dodd
bill compromises the Fed's independence by having the Fed directly fund
the Democrats' new consumer bureaucracy. This establishes a dangerous
precedent. Anytime Congress needs a funding source, it can now go
outside the budget process and have the Fed print money. Yet the Fed
has remained remarkably quiet. Why? Again, politics. The Fed's silence
should come as no surprise given the close political ties between the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration.
The Board of Governors has clearly decided to help the Obama
administration advance its legislative goals.
The Fed cannot have its cake and eat it too. If the Fed wants to be
independent, it should defend its independence consistently but
otherwise should stay out of politics. On the other hand, if the
Federal Reserve wants to be political, it should not expect Congress to
treat it as a so-called independent, nor should the Fed expect that its
nonmonetary policy actions are exempt from congressional oversight.
These activities, even when conducted by FOMC, are fiscal or regulatory
actions that involve taxpayer dollars and policy judgments. They are no
different from other policy decisions made by the executive branch.
Accordingly, I believe Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee
these activities. Unfortunately, the Fed often acts as if Congress
should be kept in the dark. It uses this independence as a shield to
hide its actions from congressional oversight, including its bailouts
of AIG and Bear Sterns. No agency should have the fiscal and regulatory
powers exercised by the Fed and not think it has to be fully
accountable to Congress. It should.
[[Page S3494]]
It is my hope this amendment will be the first step in moving the Fed
back to its more limited and traditional role in our regulatory and
constitutional systems.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to inquire how much time
remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut controls 13
minutes; the Senator from Alabama, 4 minutes; the Senator from
Louisiana, 3 minutes; the Senator from Vermont, 8 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Well, I am kind of done. I don't know if my colleague from
Vermont wants to add any words to all of this. I don't even know
whether the leaders want to be heard on this amendment or whether other
Members want to be heard. So I guess what I will do is propose that
there is an absence of a quorum and that the time be equally extracted
from all Members who control time.
Is there a fixed time for the vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur at the expiration or the
yielding back of the time.
Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent
that the time be equally charged to all three of the Members who
control the time at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
McCain amendment is disposed of, the next amendment in order be the
Corker amendment--the next Republican amendment--dealing with
underwriting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, just so we are clear, when
we dispose of the McCain amendment and related amendments to it, there
may be a side-by-side, the next Republican amendment--there will be a
Democratic amendment after the McCain amendment. Then the next
amendment after that--Republican amendment--will be the Corker
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. CORKER. I have an inquiry.
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, as far as other amendments, I have an
inquiry. As far as other amendments, I have a number of what I would
call surgical amendments, some of which may be--I just have an inquiry
as to other types of amendments. I know we are going in order,
Republican and Democrat. I just thought we might talk for a second. I
have a number of surgical amendments that improve the bill. None of
them are messaging amendments. I actually think some of them are going
to be taken in a managers' amendment.
But I would just inquire of the manager of the bill what his thinking
is as it relates to sort of time limits and how we might move through
some of these other amendments that are here strictly to try to improve
the bill and may have strong bipartisan support.
The PRESIDING Officer. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have yet to meet a Member who didn't think
an amendment they offered was going to improve the bill. We can't make
that the criteria.
First, I appreciate the Senator raising the issue because it is an
important question. I have raised with my colleague and the former
chairman, Senator Shelby, a package of amendments, technical or others,
where we think there is agreement, although he will have to take a look
at them to make that determination, not as a final managers' amendment
but to try and clear out those amendments we think can be adopted
without taking up time for votes on individual amendments. I invite any
Member who has amendments, including my colleague from Tennessee, to
give us the amendments he or she has or to show them to Senator Shelby,
and we will try to accept them where we can.
If there is some problem we can't resolve, then we need to provide
the time between now and the conclusion of the bill to consider them. I
will do my best to see that happens.
Let me take advantage of the question to make a plea to my
colleagues. Obviously, there is not an unlimited amount of time to
debate this bill. We have other matters we are all painfully aware of
that have to come up before we adjourn for the year. My hope is Members
will provide the time and come forward and we will get short time
agreements for some amendments, maybe a bit longer for others that are
a bit more substantive and require more debate. But we need to move on
this. We have submitted, several days ago, a package of what I thought
would qualify as a managers' amendment. We need to get some answers on
that so we can try to accommodate provisions to this bill that are good
contributions offered by Republicans and Democrats--in some cases
both--so we can actually add to the product of this legislation. I
appreciate my colleague's suggestion. If we can see them, we will try
to agree to all of them. If there is any problem, we will let him know
and then thin out that list so we can get to them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand to join with a bipartisan group of
colleagues supporting the Sanders amendment and also in support of the
Vitter side-by-side amendment. These are not mutually exclusive
alternatives. Both Senator Sanders and myself and many others will
strongly support both. I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and
Republicans, to do the same.
Particularly since the financial crisis, the American people have
been demanding several things. One of them clearly has been openness
and transparency about U.S. economic policy, including at the Federal
Reserve. That has been a major theme, particularly since the financial
crisis. That has
[[Page S3495]]
been a clear demand of the American people, certainly of Louisianans,
particularly since the financial crisis.
Most of us have voted and spoken in strong support of that. If we
truly want to make it happen and if we truly want to preserve that
record, we need to vote for the Sanders amendment and the Vitter
amendment today to get that done.
If we want to continue to support the same push as in the stand-alone
Sanders Senate bill, we need to vote for both amendments. If Members
want to continue to support their position, if they voted for the
Sanders budget amendment a few months ago--and a strong majority of
this body did--they need to vote for both amendments. If they want to
support the position of the House which, in a bipartisan way, supported
exactly the same language as contained in my amendment through an
amendment in the Banking Committee, a strong bipartisan vote, they need
to support both amendments. Supporting one, walking on the other, is
not good enough and will surely be recognized as not good enough.
I urge all my colleagues to support both amendments, to have full
openness and accountability and transparency, with all the protections
included against politicizing individual Fed decisions.
In many ways, I think it comes down to this one quote by Alan
Greenspan from 2004:
We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a
particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the
debate, and in this regard, it is possible to lose control of
a process that only we fully understand.
Imagine, Congress, the American people joining in on the debate. God
forbid. Imagine the moneyed elites losing complete control of the
process. God forbid. If Members share that Alan Greenspan view of
democracy, vote against my amendment. But if they share a very
different view, which I believe is embodied in this institution and our
Constitution, please support both the Sanders and Vitter amendments.
I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe there is no more time. Has the
time expired for the Senator from Louisiana?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has consumed his
time. The Senator from Alabama has 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DODD. We are prepared to yield back time on our side. I gather
the Senator from Alabama is prepared to yield back his time.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the Sanders amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Mr. DODD. I yield back all our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3738, as modified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Bingaman) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Bingaman
Byrd
Inhofe
Murkowski
The amendment (No. 3738), as modified, was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 3760
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 3760.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 62, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Barrasso
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
LeMieux
Lincoln
McCain
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sanders
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Webb
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--62
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--1
Byrd
The amendment (No. 3760) was rejected.
Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I support Senator Sanders' amendment No.
3738 regarding Federal Reserve transparency. As a cosponsor of S. 604,
the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009, my support for these efforts
is clear. American taxpayers have a right to know how, where, and when
their money is spent or put at risk. For too long, they have put up
with secrecy and arrogance. That has to stop, and that is why I would
have voted for Senator Sanders' amendment had I been able to do so and
why I voted for Senator Vitter's amendment when I arrived in
Washington. My travel was detained due to severe weather and tornadoes
affecting Oklahoma yesterday.
Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before we recess, let me say that the next
amendment up is the McCain amendment, and while we don't have an
agreement yet, I am hopeful one will be agreed to right after we come
back after the respective caucus luncheons at 2:15 p.m.
I am urging Members, again, we are trying to line up these amendments
so
[[Page S3496]]
we can have an afternoon full of votes--a short debate on amendments
and then votes. I don't want to hear later people telling me, ``I
didn't have enough time,'' when in fact we are trying to provide time
for people. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you needed more
time and then not be here or get the time agreements to allow us to
move forward.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
