Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I now wish to speak in support of S. 386, the Trade Enforcement Recovery Act. I commend Senator Leahy, my colleague from Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for introducing this important piece of legislation. As a result of the greed, recklessness and, in my view, illegal behavior of a handful of executives on Wall Street, we are suffering today from the most severe economic crisis that we have experienced since the Great Depression. Millions of people have lost their homes, their jobs, their life savings, their ability to send their kids to college, and their sense of hope that their children will follow the American dream and have a higher standard of living than they do. It is critical that we provide the FBI, the Justice Department, and all our Federal agencies the tools and resources they need to hold those responsible for the financial crisis accountable and throw those who engaged in fraud in jail where they belong. That is what the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act is all about. It is imperative we pass this bill as soon as possible. Under President Bush, the Federal Government basically turned a blind eye to white-collar crime. After September 11, about 100 FBI white- collar fraud investigators had their job responsibilities shifted to focus on terrorism, which is understandable. But the problem is, they were never replaced to do and continue the work on white-collar crime. As a result, literally thousands of allegations of financial and mortgage fraud are going unexamined this day. Chairman Leahy's bill will turn this abysmal situation around by providing the resources necessary for the FBI to hire 160 additional special agents and more than 200 professional staff and forensic analysts dedicated to investigating white-collar crime. This bill also provides the resources necessary for the Justice Department to add up to 200 prosecutors and civil enforcement attorneys nationwide, as well as 100 support staff to focus on fighting fraud. This bill provides the resources necessary for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the U.S. Secret Service, and the inspector general at HUD to hire several hundred additional fraud agents, analysts, and investigators to combat fraud. This bill is desperately needed. It is important that we take a very aggressive look at the fraud that is going on in that area. I hope very much that all our colleagues will support this legislation With regard to this issue of what has been going on on Wall Street, there is no question but that the American people are furious--and rightly so. The American people want answers. What I wish to do now is say a word above and beyond this legislation, some of the areas that I think we have to go after we pass this bill. I think the American people are demanding an investigation to understand how we got into this financial crisis in the first place. Who are those people responsible? Some people say: Well, it is all of us. We are all responsible for this financial crisis. That simply is not accurate. The truth of the matter is, there are probably a few hundred people who, through their greed, their recklessness, their illegal behavior, have pulled our Nation and much of the world into a deep recession. We need to know who they are. We need to know what they did. We need to make sure this never happens again. And where illegal activity has taken place, we need to hold them accountable. One other area I wished to touch on, to look at another issue that is of concern to people in the State of Vermont--and I get e-mails on this virtually every day, I know it is true nationwide--at the same time as we are bailing out huge Wall Street financial institutions, at the same time as these financial institutions are getting zero interest loans from the Fed, you know what they are saying to the American people. They are saying: Thanks, chump. We appreciate all your help. Now we are going to charge you 20, 25, 30 percent interest rates on the credit cards we gave you. Recently, I have been receiving many e-mails from people who have seen the Bank of America, for no particular reason, doubling their interest rates all over this country. People are using their credit cards to pay for their groceries, to pay for basic needs. College kids, they are using credit cards to pay college expenses, and they are being charged outrageous rates. The reality is, today in America, if you can believe it, one-third of all credit card holders in this country are paying interest rates above 20 percent, and as high as 41 percent, which is more than double what they paid in interest in 1990. What we are looking at right here is a situation in which the American people are bailing out these large institutions and in return what we get are outrageously high interest rates. I have introduced, along with Senators Durbin, Levin, Leahy, Harkin, and Whitehouse, legislation that will require any lender in this country to immediately cap all interest rates on consumer loans at 15 percent, including credit cards. The reason we have selected that number is, it is precisely what credit unions all over the country are operating under and have operated under for 30 years, and they have done well. They are not coming to Washington for hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts. I think if it has worked well for the credit unions, it can work well for financial institutions. I hope we can get that bill on the floor and see it pass to protect millions of credit card holders all over this country. There is another issue I think we have to address. The reason Congress has provided $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, against my vote I should say but that is what happened, the reason the Fed has lent out over $2 trillion to large financial institutions has a lot to do with the phenomenon of ``too big to fail.'' The thought is, if a large financial institution goes under, it will bring systemic damage to our entire economy, and it has to be propped up. As I said on the floor of this Senate more than once, if an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. I will be introducing legislation soon to require that the Federal banking regulators examine every bank in this country to make sure no bank is too big to fail over a reasonable period of time. In other words, I think we have to take a look at what Teddy Roosevelt did 100 years ago, over 100 years ago. If an institution is too big to fail, let's start breaking them up right now so we do not find ourselves back in the same place some years from now. It goes without saying, in another area, we have clearly got to end the deregulation of banking laws that were passed over the last decade that helped cause this crisis. There was a belief that if we let Wall Street do all the wonderful things they are capable of doing, well, they are going to provide and create prosperity, not only for their people but all over our country. Clearly, we have learned a lesson: When you leave Wall Street alone, they will do what they do best; that is, act in a very greedy way to maximize their profits. For them, 20 percent, 30 percent were not enough. They needed 40 percent, they needed 50 percent rates of return. Their CEOs needed not $20 million, not $50 million, in some cases they needed $1 billion. I think it is now widely understood that we have to reverse the deregulation that took place over the last decade, and we have to move forward with sensible regulation. That means we have to revisit certainly Gramm-Leach-Bliley, we have to restore the firewalls that were imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act in 1934 and that were repealed as a result of deregulation. On another issue, I think there is growing concern that the Federal Reserve has taken on new responsibilities and that there is a clear lack of transparency in the Fed. The American people have a right to know what is going on there, and today we are kept in the dark. Regardless of one's views on the merits of the $700 billion financial rescue package that was signed into law by President Bush on October 3, one thing we can say is that if the taxpayers and the citizens of this country want to know who received this money, all they have to do is go to a Web site and they can find that. On the other hand, if you want to know who received $2.2 trillion from the Fed, if you want to know what the terms are of those agreements, you will not find any information whatsoever. All of that information has been kept secret from the American people. I am grateful that as part of the budget debate, the Senate voted 59 to 39 in favor of an amendment I offered to the budget resolution with Senators Bunning, Webb, and Feingold, calling on the Fed to release this information. In my view, it is time for the Fed to listen to the will of the Senate and the American people and release this information as soon as possible. Let me conclude by simply saying I think today we are debating a very important piece of legislation, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, introduced by my colleague from Vermont. This is an extremely important legislation. Let's get it passed as soon as possible with as large a vote as we can. After we do that, let's start turning our attention to other aspects of this Wall Street crisis so we can respond to the frustration and the anger of the American people, create a new Wall Street, create accountability, lower interest rates, and do many of the things the American people want to us to do. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to rise today to honor two Vermont businesses, Chroma Technology Corporation and Seventh Generation, which have been named to the 2009 List of Most Democratic Workplaces. This list, compiled by the labor rights organization WorldBlu, selects the gold standard in fair labor practices each year. By creating incentives for workers to constructively participate in the governance of their company, Chroma Technology Corporation of Rockingham, VT, exemplifies the ideal of the Most Democratic Workplace. With a decentralized power structure, and with every worker eligible to become a member of the board of directors, employees genuinely play a major role in business decisions and company practices. Moreover, Chroma is 100 percent employee owned, and sets a limit on executive compensation, a limit determined by a ratio of the pay scale for the lowest-paid workers in the firm. Chroma has also developed an innovative profit-sharing system for all its employees. The other Vermont business to receive this prestigious award, Seventh Generation, is a producer of cleaning and home care products in Burlington, VT. This impressive firm truly challenges its employees to not only participate in all aspects of the company's operations, but also to take the company's mission of positive change and apply it to the outside world. Employees can apply for committee-approved paid sabbaticals in order to participate in philanthropic endeavors. To foster companywide professional development, Seventh Generation combines teambuilding with cross-functional communication so employees gain perspective on the company's big picture operations and goals. Through these professional opportunities and many other policies, employees work outside of the box and come to share the mission of the company. Perhaps not all companies can adopt every strategy of these two industry leaders, but we should recognize the value of their business models. Both Chroma and Seventh Generation go above and beyond the duty of an employer, and our entire economy benefits from the investment they make in training the best employees possible. I urge every American company--indeed every lawmaker in Congress--to consider the lessons we can take from these Most Democratic Workplaces. Improving job training and developing human resources is important, especially in our current challenging economy; at the same time, investment in workers creates a lasting benefit that lays the foundation for a strong future. Treating workers with dignity and respect, enabling them to not only develop their capacities, but participate in decisionmaking, is essential to creating democratic and productive workplaces. Mr. President, I commend Chroma Technology and Seventh Generation for a job very well done and to congratulate them on their selection as a 2009 Most Democratic Workplace.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words on this resolution commending Captain Richard Phillips, the crew of the Maersk Alabama, and the U.S. Navy. The resolution recognizes the growing problem of piracy in international waters off the coast of Somalia, a country that has been without a functioning central government since 1991. The resulting lawlessness and the desperate humanitarian situation have turned the area into a base for pirate operations. Earlier this month, Somali pirates used grappling hooks and weapons to board the cargo ship captained by Richard Phillips, who lives with his family in Underhill, VT. He led a crew of 19 on the vessel that was delivering food aid to starving people in eastern Africa. Captain Phillips bravely led the crew in retaking control of the ship by offering himself as a hostage in exchange for the release of his crew. Four pirates then took Captain Phillips into an 18-foot lifeboat, held him captive at gunpoint, and repeatedly threatened to kill him. On Easter Sunday, Captain Phillips was rescued by Navy SEALs who determined that Captain Phillips was in imminent danger and took the lives of three of his pirate captors. The people of Vermont are proud of the extraordinary courage of Captain Phillips, the dignity of his family under great stress and the outstanding performance of the U.S. Navy and other governmental personnel in rescuing Richard and dispatching those who apprehended him.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bunning be added as a cosponsor. I will yield 30 seconds to him and 10 seconds to Senator Webb, who is a very quick speaker.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. The taxpayers of this country, through the Fed, have lent $2.2 trillion to a number of financial institutions. We do not know who these institutions are or what they received. This is totally absurd. We need to name the names. That is what this amendment is about. I yield to Senator Bunning.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the American people are outraged by the greed, the recklessness, and the illegal behavior they have seen from the masters of the universe on Wall Street, who, through their outrageous behavior, these financial tycoons, many of whom have earned hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars in their career, have plunged our country and much of the world into a deep recession which has cost our people millions of jobs, which has cost people their homes, which has cost people their savings, and which has led millions of Americans to wonder what kind of future their kids are going to have. All of this is not the result of an act of nature, it is the result of very definitive actions by a small number of people on Wall Street who have shown outrageous greed in their behavior. It goes without saying that we need a major investigation to understand how we got into this disaster, and what we are going to do to get out of it, and whom we are going to hold accountable. It goes without saying that we need to begin the process of reregulating Wall Street, bringing back Glass-Steagall, and making sure our taxpayers will never again be put in this position of having to bail out the greed on Wall Street. It goes without saying that we have got to address the issue of too big to fail, in my view--and I have said this many times--if an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist, and we begin should begin right now in starting the breakup of these mammoth financial institutions whose failure would cause systemic damage to our entire economy. It goes without saying that we have got to do more than worry about Wall Street, we have got to start worrying about Main Street and the middle class of this country. We need to pass strong mortgage reform legislation, as well as legislation to protect the American people, who are paying outrageously high interest rates on their credit cards. In that regard, I have introduced legislation, and hope to get it to the floor of the Senate before too long, which would put a cap of 15 percent on the interest rates any credit card holder in this country would be charged. But those issues dealing with Wall Street and many more will have to wait for another day. Today, I am offering, along with Senators Feingold and Webb, a very simple, what I believe is a noncontroversial amendment, which I hope will have the support of every Member of this body. As you well know, the Congress voted to provide $700 billion in so- called TARP funds to help bail out some of the major financial institutions in our country. I happen to have voted against that bailout. But what is very clear is that every penny of that TARP bailout money is now public. As part of that bailout legislation, what was mandated is that every financial institution that received 1 penny of the taxpayers' money would be listed on the Treasury Department Web site. And if any American wants to know where that $700 billion went, they can account for every nickel of that. That is the way it should be. On the other hand, what many people do not know is that the TARP funds, that $700 billion, were only one part of the bailout. What many people do not know is that the Federal Reserve has lent out over $2 trillion to a number of financial institutions. But if you were to ask me or any Member of the Senate, any Member of Congress, any American, who received that money, what they will tell you is: We do not know. Over $2 trillion of taxpayer money has been placed at risk, but the American people do not know who received those funds, and what the exact contractual arrangements were. Anybody who believes in the concept of good government, anybody who believes in transparency, understands that is wrong, that is unacceptable, and that has got to change. Earlier this month, I had an opportunity to ask Ben Bernanke, who is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, about this issue when he testified before the Budget Committee, of which I am a member. At that hearing, Chairman Bernanke told the Budget Committee that since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed has provided loans to ``hundreds and hundreds of banks.'' But Mr. Bernanke declined to name any of those banks, how much assistance they were provided, or what, in fact, those banks are doing with the money that taxpayers gave them. What the Federal Reserve needs to understand is that this money does not belong to them, it belongs to the American people, and the American people have a right to know who the Fed is lending taxpayer money to, how much they are getting, and what the Fed is asking in return for this money. I cannot imagine anything that is more obvious, more common sense. How can you put $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money at risk and not know who is receiving that money? I think back now to the financial forms that Members of Congress have to fill out. People want to know, are we in a conflict of interest. We fill out those forms, they are made public. Our staff members fill out those forms. In many instances, when people are applying for Federal aid, they are forced to make public what they are asking for and how much. Some years ago, small farmers in the State of Vermont received some help from the Federal Government as part of the MILC program, if I recall correctly there. It was right in the newspaper, every nickel the struggling farmers were getting. Some of these farmers make $20,000, $25,000 a year. Some of them are on food stamps. It was, $8,399 goes to this farmer and that farmer. They were not happy about it. That is what the process was. So it seems to me that if small farmers in Vermont are going to see what they get from the Federal Government and hope to keep small farms alive in this country, I think that multibillion dollar financial institutions should also be asked to have what they received made public as well. The amendment I am offering today is a pretty simple one. It amends an amendment I offered. It was submitted in the Budget Committee. Specifically this amendment calls for increased transparency, including names, which institutions received assistance from the Fed, how much money they received, and what they are doing with this assistance. I sincerely believe that is not an issue of left versus right. In fact, some of the strongest supporters of this concept are very conservative people such as Ron Paul, a colleague of mine in the House--a former colleague--who supports this type of approach. A number of Republicans have spoken for increased transparency, as well as progressives. That is the issue. It is as simple and as clear as it can possibly be, that if taxpayers are going to be placed at risk by providing trillions of dollars in loans to large financial institutions, the American people have a right to know who is receiving that money, and what the terms are. This amendment, once again, is supported by Senator Feingold and Senator Webb. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this amendment, No. 811, would simply establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to establish a national usury law. Establishing a national usury law is not a radical concept. About half the States in our country have usury laws now, capping interest rates on their books. Unfortunately, the State usury laws were made meaningless by a 1978 Supreme Court decision that allowed national banks to charge whatever interest rates they wanted if they move to States without an interest rate cap. The bottom line is people all over this country are tired of bailing out banks and then paying 25 or 30 percent interest rates on their credit cards. That is wrong. We need a national usury rate, and this amendment would begin the process of establishing one.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 875.

Mr. SANDERS. The Dodd-Shelby amendment is a very good step forward in terms of long-overdue transparency of the Fed. I compliment both Senators for their effort, and I support their amendment. Unfortunately, this amendment, as Senator Dodd has just told us, does not go far enough. The bottom line is that the Fed has lent out some $2.2 trillion, and the American people and the Members of Congress do not know which financial institutions have received that money or what the exact terms of those transactions are. I think it is basically absurd that $2.2 trillion is at risk without us knowing who has received that money. I support the Dodd-Shelby amendment, and in a moment I will ask for support for the Sanders-Feingold-Webb amendment as well.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, tomorrow, I intend to call up an amendment which will be cosponsored by Senators Bunning, Feingold, and Menendez. This is a very simple amendment, couldn't be simpler. What the amendment is about is that when taxpayers of this country, the American citizenry, put at risk trillions of dollars which go to large financial institutions, they have a right to know who is receiving that money. That is about it, not more complicated. Earlier this year, Doug Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, told the Budget Committee that the Federal Reserve has committed nearly $2.3 trillion in taxpayer dollars to deal with the financial crisis. You have no clue, I have no clue, and nobody in America has any clue where that money went, who got it. It seems to me that right here on the floor of the Senate I have been involved in long, heated debates about whether we spend $20 million on this and $30 million on that. These debates go on forever. Yet when we are prepared to place at risk through the Fed $2.3 trillion, I guess the American people don't have a right to know who is getting that money. Interestingly, if you go to your computer and you go to the appropriate Web site, you can find out, appropriately enough, which financial institutions and other corporations have received TARP funds. I voted against those bailouts, but the truth is, if you want to know how much Citigroup has gotten, if you want to know how much Bank of America has gotten, there it is. It is in black and white, as it should be. But you will not know and you do not know which institutions received $2.3 trillion. Earlier this month, I had an opportunity to ask Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Fed, about this issue when he testified before the committee. At this hearing, the Chairman told the Budget Committee that since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed has provided loans to ``hundreds and hundreds of banks.'' But Mr. Bernanke declined to name any of these banks, how much assistance they provided to each bank, or what those banks are doing with this money. What the Federal Reserve needs to understand is that this money does not belong to them, it belongs to the American people. It is literally mind-blowing that trillions of dollars have been placed at risk--by whom, for what, going to whom? We don't know. I hope we have strong bipartisan support for this amendment which simply begins the process of asking for transparency at the Fed, which is probably the most secretive institution in Government. During the markup of the budget resolution last week, I offered an amendment with Senators Bunning, Feingold, and Menendez--all of whom serve with me on the Budget Committee--to create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide increased transparency at the Federal Reserve. Due to some concerns raised by the Parliamentarian, this amendment was modified and passed the Budget Committee by a voice vote. The amendment I will be calling up tomorrow is more specific in terms of what type of transparency the Fed should be providing. The Sanders- Bunning-Feingold-Menendez amendment simply puts the Senate on record that the Federal Reserve should publish on its Web site--just as the Treasury Department does with TARP funding--comprehensive information about all of the financial assistance it has provided under the lending facilities it created to deal with the financial crisis since March 24, 2008. What we ask specifically is--and believe me, I don't think the taxpayers in this country are asking too much when they get this information--No. 1, the identity of each business, individual, or entity that the Fed has provided financial assistance to; No. 2, the type of financial assistance provided to that business, individual, or entity; No. 3, the value or amount of that financial assistance; No. 4, the date on which the financial assistance was provided; No. 5, the specific terms of any repayment expected; No. 6, the specific rationale for providing that assistance; and No. 7, what that business, individual, or entity is doing with this financial assistance. In addition, this amendment also puts the Senate on record in support of providing the GAO with the tools and authority it needs to conduct an independent audit of the Federal Reserve--something I know Senator Bunning, among others, has been trying to accomplish for several years. This is a very simple amendment. It is a very important amendment. Anyone who believes in transparency in Government should be supporting it. I hope and expect we are going to have support from both sides of the aisle--from progressives, from conservatives. This really is a commonsense amendment that the American people deserve to see passed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, sixty years ago today, Senator George Aiken, one of the great statesmen in the history of Vermont and indeed our entire Nation, spoke to a group of rural Vermonters in the remote and sparsely populated northeastern corner of our State. As he spoke about the rugged region of the Green Mountain State he called it ``the Northeast Kingdom,'' a name which has lasted to this day as the way in which we in our State refer to this region. Today I celebrate the anniversary of this pristine area's unique and poetic name and to make a few observations about its land and its inhabitants. The Northeast Kingdom is Vermont at its most strikingly beautiful. Beckoning tourists are the glacial formations of Willoughby and Crystal Lakes, the farmland and forests along the Upper Connecticut River, and the northernmost reaches of the Green Mountains along the Canadian border. Vermont is one of the most rural States in the Nation, and the Northeast Kingdom is our most rural region. While it makes up more than one-fifth of the State's total geography, it has barely 10 percent of Vermont's total population. In fact, my first home in Vermont was in the Northeast Kingdom, in the town of Stannard, a town with a population of 200. As we look for new dawn in this time of economic difficulty, I am reminded of this fiercely independent region of which Senator Aiken spoke so eloquently 60 years ago. The Northeast Kingdom is inhabited by working Americans, solid and proud Vermonters: it is from their hardy spirit, and the spirit of people like them, that our country's strength has always come. It is my hope that not only will the rugged beauty of the forests and lakes of the Northeast Kingdom survive, but so will that strong and independent spirit that we can turn to as a catalyst for rebuilding our Nation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is hard to know how to begin because there is such a huge sense of outrage today in our country at what Wall Street has done through their greed, through their recklessness, and through their illegal behavior. The so-called masters of the universe, the best and the brightest, have plunged our Nation and, in fact, the world into a deep recession and taken us to the edge of a major depression. In my State of Vermont and all over the country, what we are seeing is good, decent people losing jobs, losing homes, losing savings, losing their hopes for a future because of the greed and recklessness of a small number of people on Wall Street. Everybody understands that one of the major institutions that has taken us into the financial mess we are in today is AIG. Over the past several years, AIG has moved away from being the largest insurance company in the world to becoming the largest unregulated gambling hall in the world. That is what they have done. As a result of the risky bets that AIG had made and lost on, the taxpayers have spent $170 billion bailing them out. That amounts to some $600 for every man, woman, and child. During much of this period, Hank Greenberg, former CEO of AIG, was able to amass a personal fortune of close to $2 billion. In 2007, he was one of the wealthiest people in the world. Even after the collapse of AIG, Mr. Greenberg is still worth close to $100 million, according to Forbes magazine. Having helped cause this financial disaster as a result of their reckless and irresponsible behavior, it is beyond comprehension that these same people, the best and the brightest, would actually believe they are entitled to millions of dollars in bonuses. Think for a moment. These are the people who have caused one of the great financial disasters in the last 70 years, and they are sitting back and saying: For all of my fine and excellent work, I am going to be rewarded with a $3 million bonus or whatever it may be. It goes without saying that we have to hear the outrage of the American people and say: Enough is enough. I have signed on to two letters which essentially tell these people who have received their bonuses to give them back. If they don't give them back, we are going to pass a surtax on those bonuses so the taxpayers will, in fact, receive back what we gave them. In my view, what we have to move to is legislation, to what I proposed, along with Senators Lincoln and Boxer, which was called ``stop the greed'' legislation on Wall Street. The President is paid $400,000 a year. I think the President will survive on that sum of money. It seems to me that when taxpayers are spending hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out large Wall Street firms, we should make it very clear that none of their executives should be entitled to earn more than the President of the United States. They can, in fact, get by. I know it will be hard, but I expect they can survive on $400,000 a year when the taxpayers of this country are bailing them out. More importantly and, in fact, for another lengthier discussion, we need to move to a new concept of what Wall Street should be doing. Bankers historically in our country and in the world play a very important role in providing credit to businesses that then create jobs, providing credit to individuals who can purchase homes and other necessities. That is what bankers historically have done. But over the last number of years, what Wall Street has become is not a place where responsible loans are made but a gambling hall where these guys have made huge sums of money in very risky investments that have failed. The taxpayers are now bailing them out. We need to rethink the function of Wall Street. I, personally, believe that all these CEOs who are responsible for the crisis we are in right now should be leaving their positions. I would hope business schools will be educating financiers and business people to take the position that their job is to help this country, help create decent- paying jobs, help people get the homes they need, help people get the loans responsibly that they should have. That is a radical idea, I know. But I would hope we can move toward a Wall Street which has those values. The American people are sick and tired. They have had it up to here with a Wall Street that has seen their only responsibility being to make as much money as they possibly can in any way they possibly can. Having said that, immediate action in stopping these bonuses is the order of the day. Longer term, we need fundamental reforms in the way Wall Street does business. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as I think all Americans understand, there is a new sense of outrage today at what Wall Street has done through their greed, their recklessness and, perhaps, illegal behavior, in plunging this Nation and, in fact, the world into a deep recession, which has caused the loss of millions and millions of jobs, had an extraordinarily negative impact on so many people's lives in terms of their savings and their ability to send their kids to college, and in terms of the loss of their homes. That is what Wall Street has done. In my view, as I have said time and time before, we must have a deep investigation to understand what this crisis was, who are the people responsible for all of this damage, and we must hold them accountable. In fact, it will be a test of the criminal justice system of this country if, in fact, we have the courage to say to these millionaires and billionaires: You know what, the law applies to you too, and you cannot act illegally and cause so much damage to our country and the world. One of the many senses of anger and frustration that we hear from the American people, one of them that I hear about very often from Vermonters, as well as people all over this country, is that at a time when we are providing hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street, at a time when large banks are borrowing money from the Fed at a zero interest rate, the response of Wall Street has been to say: Thank you very much for all of that, and now we are going to charge you 15, 20, 25, 30 percent interest rates on your credit cards. It seems to me that when the middle class is shrinking, when people are losing their savings, when people are losing their jobs, it is an absolute outrage that Wall Street, which is being bailed out by the taxpayers of this country, is now charging exorbitant and usurious interest rates for the American people. What we are seeing now all over this country is millions of people who are suddenly receiving notices from these banks that say, oh, by the way, we are going to double or triple your interest rate. That is wrong and that has to end. I am not going to quote from the Bible, but trust me, it goes back to the Bible, where there are very clear references to the immorality of usury. In fact, what we have to understand is that what Wall Street and these credit card companies today are doing is not anything different than what gangsters and loan shark artists do who break people's kneecaps when they don't pay back, only these gangsters have three-piece suits and have millions of dollars. But at the same time they are destroying people's lives by charging 25, 30 percent interest rates. Today, I will be introducing legislation that will require any lender in this country to immediately cap all interest rates on consumer loans at 15 percent, including credit cards. How do we select 15 percent as the appropriate number to deal with the usury which is going on in this country? The reason we selected that number is because 15 percent is the same interest rate cap Congress imposed on credit union loans almost 30 years ago when it amended the Federal Credit Union Act. Many people do not know this, but, in fact, right now credit unions, with certain exceptions, have to charge interest rates of 15 percent or lower. I do not see the credit unions of this country coming to Congress for hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts. In fact, they are doing quite well. They are responding to the credit needs of their small businesses in their communities and to individuals. They are doing well. They have survived and have thrived with this regulation. Right now, the National Credit Union Administration imposes a 15- percent cap, except under certain circumstances where the interest rate can go as high as 18 percent. The legislation I will be introducing today also would allow banks to charge higher interest rates if the Federal Reserve determines that is a necessity to maintain the safety and the soundness of lenders. Essentially all we are saying today is we have to end the outrage by which Wall Street and large credit card companies are ripping off the American people, and the solution we are proposing is to simply emulate what the Federal Credit Union Act does for the credit unions all over this country. I am very proud Senator Dick Durbin is an original cosponsor of this legislation. I hope many of my colleagues will join him in sponsoring this bill. Interestingly enough, the proposal we are introducing today is very similar to one former Senator Al D'Amato advocated for in 1991 when he offered an amendment to cap credit card interest rates. The D'Amato amendment would have capped all credit card interest rates at 14 percent. I should mention that amendment was adopted by the Senate with a vote of 74 to 19. If the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of that amendment back in 1991, I hope we will have at least or more support for my bill today because the problem today actually is far more severe. This is legislation the American people want. The American people are sick and tired of being ripped off by Wall Street, especially when they are bailing out these large financial institutions. Credit card use today is no longer just for luxuries. All over this country, people are buying their groceries with credit cards, and they are buying other basic necessities with credit cards because they have no other alternative. Young people are paying some of their college expenses with credit cards. Given that reality, given the fact that the middle class is hurting, it seems to me that if we are going to respond to the needs of the American people, we need to deal with the usury that is going on in this country. We need to cap interest rates. I look forward very much to my colleagues supporting this legislation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as I think all Americans understand, there is a new sense of outrage today at what Wall Street has done through their greed, their recklessness and, perhaps, illegal behavior, in plunging this Nation and, in fact, the world into a deep recession, which has caused the loss of millions and millions of jobs, had an extraordinarily negative impact on so many people's lives in terms of their savings and their ability to send their kids to college, and in terms of the loss of their homes. That is what Wall Street has done. In my view, as I have said time and time before, we must have a deep investigation to understand what this crisis was, who are the people responsible for all of this damage, and we must hold them accountable. In fact, it will be a test of the criminal justice system of this country if, in fact, we have the courage to say to these millionaires and billionaires: You know what, the law applies to you too, and you cannot act illegally and cause so much damage to our country and the world. One of the many senses of anger and frustration that we hear from the American people, one of them that I hear about very often from Vermonters, as well as people all over this country, is that at a time when we are providing hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street, at a time when large banks are borrowing money from the Fed at a zero interest rate, the response of Wall Street has been to say: Thank you very much for all of that, and now we are going to charge you 15, 20, 25, 30 percent interest rates on your credit cards. It seems to me that when the middle class is shrinking, when people are losing their savings, when people are losing their jobs, it is an absolute outrage that Wall Street, which is being bailed out by the taxpayers of this country, is now charging exorbitant and usurious interest rates for the American people. What we are seeing now all over this country is millions of people who are suddenly receiving notices from these banks that say, oh, by the way, we are going to double or triple your interest rate. That is wrong and that has to end. I am not going to quote from the Bible, but trust me, it goes back to the Bible, where there are very clear references to the immorality of usury. In fact, what we have to understand is that what Wall Street and these credit card companies today are doing is not anything different than what gangsters and loan shark artists do who break people's kneecaps when they don't pay back, only these gangsters have three-piece suits and have millions of dollars. But at the same time they are destroying people's lives by charging 25, 30 percent interest rates. Today, I will be introducing legislation that will require any lender in this country to immediately cap all interest rates on consumer loans at 15 percent, including credit cards. How do we select 15 percent as the appropriate number to deal with the usury which is going on in this country? The reason we selected that number is because 15 percent is the same interest rate cap Congress imposed on credit union loans almost 30 years ago when it amended the Federal Credit Union Act. Many people do not know this, but, in fact, right now credit unions, with certain exceptions, have to charge interest rates of 15 percent or lower. I do not see the credit unions of this country coming to Congress for hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts. In fact, they are doing quite well. They are responding to the credit needs of their small businesses in their communities and to individuals. They are doing well. They have survived and have thrived with this regulation. Right now, the National Credit Union Administration imposes a 15- percent cap, except under certain circumstances where the interest rate can go as high as 18 percent. The legislation I will be introducing today also would allow banks to charge higher interest rates if the Federal Reserve determines that is a necessity to maintain the safety and the soundness of lenders. Essentially all we are saying today is we have to end the outrage by which Wall Street and large credit card companies are ripping off the American people, and the solution we are proposing is to simply emulate what the Federal Credit Union Act does for the credit unions all over this country. I am very proud Senator Dick Durbin is an original cosponsor of this legislation. I hope many of my colleagues will join him in sponsoring this bill. Interestingly enough, the proposal we are introducing today is very similar to one former Senator Al D'Amato advocated for in 1991 when he offered an amendment to cap credit card interest rates. The D'Amato amendment would have capped all credit card interest rates at 14 percent. I should mention that amendment was adopted by the Senate with a vote of 74 to 19. If the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of that amendment back in 1991, I hope we will have at least or more support for my bill today because the problem today actually is far more severe. This is legislation the American people want. The American people are sick and tired of being ripped off by Wall Street, especially when they are bailing out these large financial institutions. Credit card use today is no longer just for luxuries. All over this country, people are buying their groceries with credit cards, and they are buying other basic necessities with credit cards because they have no other alternative. Young people are paying some of their college expenses with credit cards. Given that reality, given the fact that the middle class is hurting, it seems to me that if we are going to respond to the needs of the American people, we need to deal with the usury that is going on in this country. We need to cap interest rates. I look forward very much to my colleagues supporting this legislation.

Mr. SANDERS

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

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.