[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7703-7711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           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for the quorum call be rescinded.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 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

[[Page 7704]]

       ``(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:

       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

[[Page 7705]]

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 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

[[Page 7706]]

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 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.

[[Page 7707]]

  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 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

[[Page 7708]]

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

[[Page 7709]]

think it has to be fully accountable to Congress. It should.
  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

[[Page 7710]]

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 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.

[[Page 7711]]

  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 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.

                          ____________________