Showing posts with label Sen Chris Dodd (D-CT). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen Chris Dodd (D-CT). Show all posts

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

S.1619 Livable Communities Act of 2009

(I don't like what this bill says.--jef)
***
S.1619
Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 8/6/2009) Cosponsors (20)
Related Bills: H.R.4690

Latest Major Action: 8/3/2010 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

SUMMARY AS OF:
8/6/2009--Introduced.
Livable Communities Act of 2009 - Establishes in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) an Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities (OSHC).

Establishes in the executive branch an independent Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities.

Requires the OSHC Director to establish a program to make comprehensive planning grants and sustainability challenge grants to eligible entities (partnerships between a consortium of units of general local government and an eligible partner, which may be a metropolitan planning organization, a rural planning organization, a regional council, or a state).

Requires the use of a comprehensive planning grant to carry out a project to: (1) coordinate land use, housing, transportation, and infrastructure planning processes across jurisdictions and agencies; (2) identify potential regional partnerships for developing and implementing a comprehensive regional plan; (3) conduct or update housing, infrastructure, transportation, energy, and environmental assessments to determine regional needs and promote sustainable development; (4) develop or update a comprehensive regional plan or goals and strategies to implement an existing comprehensive regional plan; and (5) implement local zoning and other code changes necessary to implement a comprehensive regional plan and promote sustainable development.

Requires the use of a sustainability challenge grant to: (1) promote integrated transportation, housing, energy, and economic development activities carried out across policy and governmental jurisdictions; (2) promote sustainable and location-efficient development; and (3) implement projects identified in a comprehensive regional plan.

Directs the OSHC Director to study and report to specified congressional committees on incentives for encouraging lenders to make, and homebuyers and homeowners to participate in, energy-efficient mortgages and location-efficient mortgages.


***

(This seems like the corporatization of the country side.--jef)

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Corporatists in Democratic Caucus Are Terrified of Elizabeth Warren

This post first appeared on Daily Kos.
Posted by kos at July 28, 2010

Michael Hirsh:
There has been, in recent days, a groundswell of support for Elizabeth Warren, one of the top candidates to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. One less-noted reason for all this outspoken fervor is that, for many liberal critics, Barack Obama’s economic team is something of an intellectual cabal. Starting with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Larry Summers, the senior members of this team are all people “who have Bob Rubin on their speed dial,” as one of these critics told me. They are, in other words, part of the deregulatory brigade led by then–treasury secretary Rubin in the 1990s who helped set the stage for the financial disaster by giving Wall Street most of what it wanted, whether it was Glass-Steagall repeal or reduced regulatory oversight of derivatives trading [...]

Hence the enthusiasm among the losers in this debate for Elizabeth Warren, the fiery Harvard Law professor who largely sided with the Volcker-Lincoln camp and who first came up with the idea for a consumer-protection agency. Warren is most definitely not a Rubin acolyte. She’s more likely to be the sort of person who reveals to the public just how many administration speed dials Rubin occupies. Warren has long abhorred the sort of inside-the-box thinking that led a lot of smart people in Washington to conclude for more than two decades that Wall Street could be left to sort things out on its own.

That clubby insider’s mentality has given us and the world disaster after disaster. They can’t and won’t regulate themselves. The only hope is an outsider, someone who has already proven her mettle by aggressively overseeing the TARP program, and proving that she’s independent and incorruptible.

Today, I wrote in The Hill:
Now, there’s a push to define the new consumer bureau, and Wall Street boosters in Congress and the White House, such as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, are fighting to defang the agency before it has a chance to firmly establish itself.

Meanwhile, progressive activists want someone they can trust in that important new role, and there is no better person for the job than Elizabeth Warren.

Some in the administration seem panicked at the prospect of a Warren nomination. One anonymous administration source fretted to The New York Times about her “crusading style, her seemingly visceral loathing of financial services companies and her expansive way of interpreting assignments.” Given the mood of the country, those are good things! [...]

Warren’s Senate path certainly would be difficult, but she’s earned respect from Republicans like Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley for refusing to play nice with the White House on TARP oversight. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont certainly relishes a possible floor fight: “It will allow for a serious debate as to the role that government should play in protecting the American people against the outrageous behavior we have seen on Wall Street.” Even Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Monday that she was “very confirmable,” suggesting Warren may indeed be getting serious consideration for the job.

And if the Senate continues its reputation of being the place where good things go to die, Obama could always give Warren the job via recess appointment.
Enter Sen. Chris Dodd. His personal unpopularity forced him into early retirement this year, and given his lack of accountability (he’ll be gone soon anyway) he’s taken the lead in fighting back against a Warren nomination, thus giving cover to Senate corporatists who also oppose Warren but don’t want to do so publicly.
Progressives have been strongly pressuring the Obama administration to appoint Warren ever since the Wall Street reform bill passed in Congress. Some have argued that she be given a recess appointment if a minority of senators block her confirmation. Dodd objects to that idea.

“I think that would be a huge mistake,” Dodd said, in response to a question from TPMDC. “Recess appointments. No, no, no.”

“I think those are, you know, Republicans used to do it, I think that’s a mistake,” Dodd added. “Except in the most extreme circumstances where you need someone because of an emergency pending, but as a routine matter, I think it’s a fundamental mistake.”
Yes, Republicans used to do it. And when they’re in power, they’ll do it again. And given the GOP’s zeal to obstruct everything, you have to use whatever tools are available to get the job done. Yet there is Dodd, making incoherent arguments against a recess appointment:
Dodd’s chief concern, he said, is swiftness. If the agency isn’t set up quickly with credible leadership, it will be vulnerable to GOP attacks.

“You’ve heard the Republicans talking about repealing this bill,” Dodd said. “One of the first efforts they’d need would be to repeal this agency. If it’s not set up and running, the case against it becomes easier. So you want an established entity, as quickly as you can, with credible leadership. And if you don’t have that then you leave it vulnerable to the attacks. They will try to get rid of this agency, I promise you, when I’m gone. So having someone there that’s established this, getting it moving in the right direction, is very, very important, or you could lose it.”
What will be quicker — trying to get a nominee through a Senate that has over 300 House-passed bills bottled up, and dozens of stalled nominees? Or a recess appointment that can be executed by executive fiat during the August recess?

Fact is, the corporatists in the Senate Democratic caucus are terrified of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that will actually hold Wall Street accountable. People like Ben Nelson loathe Warren, and he isn’t alone among Democrats. That’s why Dodd is doing their dirty work.

Meanwhile, Republicans are Republicans, you know where their priorities lie. And there’s little fear of pissing them off and having them gum up the works, because they’ve been pissed and gumming up the works since day one.

So sure, nominate her, send her name to the Senate. And if the Senate doesn’t act expeditiously, then recess appoint her.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

If You're not a Shill for Banks & Big Business, Washington Calls You Controversial

Tim Geithner and Chris Dodd's opposition to Elizabeth Warren stems from the fact that she wasn't a puppet for big banks.
By David Sirota | July 21, 2010

Editor's Note: As chair of the bailout oversight panel, Elizabeth Warren held Wall Street executives' feet to the fire and proved time and time again that she was not afraid to speak out. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is fighting to block her appointment.

Over the last few days, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have made the case that Harvard professor and Congressional Oversight Panel chairwoman Elizabeth Warren is too controversial a figure to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This, then, raises the revealing question of how Washington defines "controversial"?

Recall that the charge of "too controversial" was not made by Senate Democrats (or at least not at the volume they are being made against Warren) against Gary Gensler, the former Goldman Sachs executive appointed by President Obama to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It was not made by most Senate Democrats against Larry Summers, a hedge fund executive subsequently appointed to a top economic position in the administration. It was not made against Citigroup executive Jack Lew when last week he was appointed to head the Office of Management and Budget. And it wasn't made against Tim Geithner, who orchestrated massive taxpayer giveaways to major banks during his time at the New York Fed.

And yet, according to Democratic-run Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Warren -- an academic not connected to the financial industry or past corrupt governmental decisions; a regulator working to protect taxpayer's bailout money -- may apparently be too controversial to be confirmed by a Democratic Senate.

The message to both today's generation and the future generation of citizens who may aspire to work in government is pretty clear: If you are personally/financially connected to private for-profit corporations -- even those that helped destroy the economy -- that underwrite political campaigns, Washington has no problem with your appointment to a position overseeing those same private corporations. But if you forge an independent path and are not connected to those corporations and to that sluice of corporate campaign cash, you are suspect -- and probably will have trouble getting a job in government. Why? Because the former cadre of insiders poses no real threat to the economic status quo -- while the latter kind of independent outsider like Elizabeth Warren might actually rock the boat. Defining "controversial" this way, thus, creates a perverse incentive system: Going through the revolving door is rewarded as noncontroversial, while refusing to go through the revolving door is effectively punished as too controversial.

This is how corruption tends to work most often in D.C. On a day to day basis, it's far less the brazen money-for-votes schemes, and far more the narrowing of the political debate and the distortion of political language itself. In this case, it's the hijacking of the concept of "controversial" so as to marginalize an agent of change. And if that hijacking ends up preventing Elizabeth Warren from heading the CFPA, then, indeed, the status quo will have won.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Now He Tells Us: Dodd's Belated Fin-Reg Wisdom

(I t's unanimous then: both the right and left have correctly determined this bill is a fraud and does nothing to keep another financial disaster like the one which occurred at the end of 2008 from happening again. All that work, all that yelling and screaming, and all we got was this? Calling it reform is like calling a tree you just pissed on a bathroom--jef)


***

by Nicole Gelinas | Thursday, July 15, 2010

A couple of hours before the Senate narrowly passed the Dodd-Frank fin-reg bill today, Sen. Chris Dodd, one of the bill's two namesakes, spoke some common sense on the Senate floor:
"We can’t legislate wisdom or passion. We can’t legislate competency."
Dodd did not allow this point of truth to inform the bill that he helped write, though.

The financial system's failures made themselves obvious starting in 2007 in part because legislators and regulators thought that they could conjure up on command not only wisdom and competence but omniscience.

In the years leading up to the financial crisis, regulators allowed financial firms such as AIG to create derivatives that evaded the old-fashioned limits on borrowing and trading. The people in charge figured that the financial guys had figured out every angle and made these things perfectly safe.

Regulators, too, allowed banks to borrow far more than old-fashioned rules would have allowed on mortgage-related securities and other instruments rated AAA — because competent people had determined that such securities could never fail.

Finally, regulators allowed people to buy houses with no money down — even though we learned in the 1920s that it's not a good idea to let people borrow limitlessly to speculate that the price of something will continue to rise.

The lesson to be learned here is that we need borrowing and trading rules that apply to everyone and everything for those times when bankers, regulators, and tens of millions of ordinary Americans aren't right.

The bill offers no evidence that anyone in Congress has learned this lesson.

Instead, by next week, we will have a new Financial Stability Oversight Council (D.C.-ers are already referring to it as "ef-sock") to determine which financial activities and investments are dangerous and which are safe.

We'll also have new derivatives regulations that still allow some users, including big industrial companies and their banks, to escape consistent rules. All that means is it's more likely that a decade hence, reporters will be scratching their heads about how a mild-mannered Midwestern farm-machinery company managed to bankrupt itself and the economy with trillions of dollars' worth of bets via some previously unheard-of "exotic" financial instrument.

Maybe then, a truly chastened Congress could start out with what Dodd said today instead of what's in his soon-to-be law.

Monday, June 14, 2010

A Lobbying Tempest Engulfs Financial Overhaul

What do you know? Whenever something is about to get fucked up in DC, look no further than the invading army of corporate lobbyists laying siege on the US capital.

###

Lobbying Tempest Engulfs Financial Overhaul
by Jim Kuhnhenn
Monday, June 14, 2010 by Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Congress' final tinkering with Wall Street overhaul this month offers lobbyists a last-ditch shot to reshape the package on behalf of clients with billions at stake.

Even as the legislation gets tougher on banks by the week, agents of influence are hardly strangers on Capitol Hill. Many once worked for the lawmakers they're lobbying.

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of a panel resolving differences in House and Senate bills, and Sen. Chris Dodd, who shepherded the Senate's measure, have their hands full fending off industry efforts to dilute the final legislation. They must do so while trying to hold together a fragile Senate coalition with only four Republicans.

So sticking points in this legislative tempest, whether over big banks' exotic trades or the plastic in people's wallets, are awfully tricky.

At least 56 industry lobbyists have served on the personal staffs of the 43 Senate and House members who will shape the legislation over the next two weeks, according to Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics, two government watchdogs.

What's more, the center found that lawmakers on the committee settling differences between the House and Senate versions have received more than $112 million over two decades from political action committees or employees of industries affected by the legislation.

A look at the main issues to be settled and how lobbyists come down on them as lawmakers try to deliver on President Barack Obama's request to give him a bill to sign by July 4.

Derivatives:

Many corporations typically use these unregulated securities as a hedge against market fluctuations. For instance, an airline may try to soften the cost of a potential rise in fuel prices by betting in the derivatives market that fuel prices will rise. But derivatives have become instruments for risky speculation. The legislation would require that they be traded in regulated exchanges.

The toughest Senate provision would force banks to shed most of their lucrative derivatives business.

The proposal's chief advocate is Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., who survived liberal and labor attacks during a hard-fought primary runoff largely by spotlighting her anti-Wall Street stance. Now she's stronger in the debate.

The Obama administration and bank regulators have said her proposal goes too far.

Large banks are apoplectic, watching as it gains strength over time.

Volcker Rule:

A Senate plan known as the Volcker rule, after former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, would prohibit banks from betting on the markets with their own money. It would let regulators determine the best way to put into place that prohibition, which would apply to all securities trades, not just derivatives.

Several Democratic lawmakers want to strengthen that by giving regulators less latitude to modify the prohibition, and by preventing financial firms from betting against securities they assemble for their clients.

Large banks see billions of dollars in trades slipping away. They prefer a House plan that merely says regulators could ban such trades. But Frank appears set on the tougher route.

Debit card fees:

Americans use debit cards more than credit cards. But their use costs merchants money: For every swipe, merchants pay 1 percent to 2 percent to banks and credit networks.

A proposal that passed the Senate would require the Federal Reserve to limit those fees, and it has created a lobbying donnybrook between banks and retailers.

Most of the fees go to banking giants. But the face of the lobbying effort has been small community banks and credit unions that say they will be disproportionately hurt if they lose such fees.

The proposal excludes banks with assets under $10 billion. Officials at small banks say their institutions still would have to lower their fees to compete with bigger banks or drop their debit card programs.

Consumer protections:

The final legislation would create a government consumer financial protection entity. This was once considered the most contentious step sought by the administration.

The House bill exempted accountants, tax preparers, real estate agents and auto dealers from this oversight. The Senate bill has no such exceptions.

Auto dealers have lobbied fiercely to be excluded from the law's reach, arguing that they assemble loans but don't administer them. Obama has fought back, elevating the issue to a test of White House strength.

___

Online:

House Financial Services Committee: http://tinyurl.com/y4uercn

Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee: http://banking.senate.gov

Consumer Federation of America: http://www.consumerfed.org

Public Citizen: http://tinyurl.com/2a5zyn9

Center for Responsive Politics: http://tinyurl.com/23qbmwo

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Bush Admin Barred Officials From Briefing Congress On Impending Financial Crisis in Fall 2008

Bush Admin Barred Officials From Briefing Congress
On Impending Financial Crisis in Fall 2008

Brian Beutler | May 3, 2010

Nearly two years after the Wall Street meltdown drove the U.S. economy to the brink of collapse, and forced the U.S. government to prop up major financial institutions with hundreds of billions of dollars, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now claims that the Bush Administration prohibited its own top officials who were handling the emerging crisis from briefing Congress until a complete financial collapse was only hours away.

In little-noticed statements to reporters over the last few weeks, Pelosi has alleged that the Bush administration knew well in advance of its intervention that the financial crisis would hit, and that Congress would need to authorize a historic and unpopular bailout - but that top officials, including then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, told her that they had been barred from briefing Congress about true extent of the crisis.

If accurate, the allegation could constitute a major indictment of the Bush administration, which may have worsened the crisis and resulting economic fallout by delaying the call for congressional action. Pelosi says the admissions from Bush administration officials that they had kept Congress in the dark came in private conversations between her and those officials in person and by phone. None of the other parties to those conversations would comment for this story. Nor is it clear if the Administration's alleged decision not to brief Congress earlier was a calculated strategy to avoid spooking the already shaky financial markets thus hastening the crisis or, as Pelosi suggests, a political calculation in advance of the 2008 presidential elections, or a combination of the two.

During her weekly press conference on April 15, a reporter asked Pelosi a seemingly innocuous question about taxes. Pelosi prefaced her response with a fairly standard litany: explaining the dire state of the U.S. economy inherited by President Obama and setting the blame at the foot of the Bush administration. But she also added this: "When [then-Senator Obama] accepted the nomination in Colorado, the [Bush] Administration had kept from the public the idea that, in a matter of weeks, the financial community would be in crisis, and we would need to pass the TARP legislation."

Much has been written about the days, weeks, and months leading up to the financial crisis, which culminated with Lehman Brothers declaring bankruptcy on September 14, 2008. We know, for instance, that Treasury officials in the Bush administration had conceived of a contingency plan along the lines of the TARP bailout months before they actually called for one: a "break the glass" Bank Recapitalization Plan. And it was no secret to anybody paying attention that the financial system had suffered major shocks throughout 2008. But Pelosi appeared to be saying that Paulson and others knew that the glass would have to be broken weeks before they begged her and other congressional leaders to step in.

To clarify, I followed up with her after that press conference.

Pelosi affirmed my interpretation of what she'd said.

She recounted to me the events of September 18, 2008 - some two weeks, she reminded me, after Barack Obama accepted the Democratic Presidential nomination in Denver. Lehman Brothers had just filed for bankruptcy four days earlier and the Federal Reserve had authorized the New York Fed to lend up to $85 billion to insurance giant AIG. That afternoon, she called Paulson to ask for a full briefing the next morning.

"They said, 'That will be too late. That will be too late. Tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock will be too late,'" Pelosi recalled.

In a meeting that evening with Congressional leaders and staff, Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and others offered a dire assessment, and made an appeal for intervention that ultimately resulted in TARP. Bernanke and Paulson beseeched the legislators to act quickly, warning that, the entire U.S. economy might collapse in days without rapid intervention. But Pelosi had a question. "I asked them, and said, 'Why am I calling you - why didn't you call me?," Pelosi said.

In our initial conversation, that's where Pelosi stopped: "You go ask them what their response was to that question."

I reached out to Paulson multiple times over the last two weeks, but received no response*. Phil Swagel, who served as assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury department during the crisis, didn't have an answer to the question Pelosi says she asked. But he insisted that the department made the call on TARP based on the shocks that hit Wall Street that week of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and no earlier. "From my perspective, the TARP proposal was put forward as a result of the events of the week of September 14, notably the stresses in money markets (money market mutual funds and commercial paper)," Swagel told me via email.

Unable to reach Paulson, I circled back to Pelosi last week. This time she agreed to elaborate: "Here's what they said. They said, 'We were not allowed to tell Congress, but since you called, we're going to answer your questions.'"

Pelosi offered no hints as to why the Bush administration would prohibit its top lieutenants from speaking up about the need for federal intervention. Among their concerns might have been sowing panic that would have added further strains to financial markets already close to the breaking point. But Pelosi's comments suggest, though she declines to go farther, that election year politics played into the equation.

In his book, On The Brink, Paulson recounts the events of September 18th and the days leading up to TARP. Paulson notes that, hours prior to the meeting, Pelosi sought to include fiscal stimulus in any recapitalization plan, and that during the meeting, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank pushed to include pay restrictions for participating executives, but that he resisted both ideas.

Paulson acknowledges that Pelosi did indeed place the phone call that resulted in the briefing that evening.

"On my way to the White House, Nancy Pelosi called to ask about the market. She had wanted me to come up the following morn with Ben [Bernanke] to brief the Democratic leadership. I related just how bad things were and told her we would have to go to the Hill that night to ask for emergency powers. She asked why it couldn't wait until the morning, and I replied it might be too late by then.

He does not, however, explain why the administration didn't approach Congress unprompted.

A spokesman for former President George W. Bush had no comment on this story.

I asked Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd last week about Pelosi's charges and he said this is the first time he's heard such an allegation raised. But he seemed mostly unsurprised. "I said to Hank Paulson, 'Be Hank Paulson.'" Dodd told me. "If you listen to the White House, you're going to mess this up."

Two days after the September 18 meeting, the Treasury Department presented what came to be known as TARP to Congress. The original, three-page draft, would have ceded the Bush administration extraordinary authority to purchase assets from the private sector, barring oversight or judicial review. Congressional principals agreed to push ahead with a bailout, but refused to grant the executive branch all of the powers they were seeking. On September 29, House Republicans blocked the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, pushing markets over a cliff and sending shudders through the White House and Wall Street. Days before, Paulson famously dropped to one knee and begged Pelosi to round up enough Democrats to pass the bill. But the Republicans ultimately delivered the votes they promised and TARP passed on round two, and was signed into law on October 3.

* Late update: Paulson spokeswoman Michele Davis emails to say "no one at Treasury ever felt in any way constrained by the White House from communicating with the Congress."

Monday, April 26, 2010

Dodd Bill Would Allow Fed To Hide Its Spending

Dodd Bill Would Allow Fed To Hide Its Spending
Ryan Grim, Huffington Post

The Wall Street reform bill headed for a test vote on the Senate floor Monday night will allow the Federal Reserve to continue to pump trillions of dollars into major banks largely in secrecy, the co-author of House language that would open the central bank to an audit charged in a memo to the Senate.

"The Senate has a provision in its reform bill that purports to audit the Fed. But, it really doesn't do anything of the sort. I'm going to run down the details for you, and reprint the legislative language so you can read it yourself," writes Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.).

It would not allow the GAO to look into the Fed's massive purchase of toxic assets, its hundreds of billions in foreign currency swaps with other central banks or its open market operations, among other restrictions.

Grayson and co-author Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) passed legislation through the House that would allow the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the Federal Reserve and, after a delay, release the information to Congress. It was a remarkable victory, with a populist coalition beating back the combined lobbying efforts of the Treasury Department, the Fed and Wall Street banks.

The Senate has been more hostile territory for the Fed audit provision. Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) opposes the Grayson-Paul version, but allowed a much more restrictive audit proposal from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) into his bill.

Grayson, in his memo, outlines the shortcomings of the Senate bill. Walker Todd, who spent some 20 years as a counselor with the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland, reviewed Grayson's analysis and told HuffPost he concurs with it.

The Seante bill would allow an audit of the  TALF program and slightly expands authority to audit emergency lending conducted under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, but restricts it to very specific purposes.

Meanwhile, it would not allow the GAO to look into the Fed's massive purchase of toxic assets, its hundreds of billions in foreign currency swaps with other central banks or its open market operations, among other restrictions.

Fed backers argue that requiring transparency would politicize monetary policy, though monetary policy and the Fed itself are already political -- they regularly lobby Congress, after all -- and would tempt lawmakers to pressure the Fed to inflate the currency to reduce the debt burden.

Merkley said he agrees with Grayson's analysis. "I appreciate Representative Grayson's concerns over accountability at the Federal Reserve. I have been a strong proponent of Fed reform and voted against the re-confirmation of Ben Bernanke because the Fed has been so lax in using its regulatory powers," Merkley said in a statement to HuffPost.

"Moreover, I felt strongly that we need to act now to empower the GAO to audit the extraordinary emergency programs created by the Fed and I succeeded in getting that power into the Senate bill. Rep. Grayson points out, fairly in my mind, that we need to go even further to audit the Fed's standing programs. I agree. While we need to protect the Fed's independence to implement monetary policy, I think the structure and use of their standard programs should be transparent."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) intends to introduce an amendment on the floor effectively adding the Grayson-Paul language to the Senate bill. The language is hereand below is a summary from his office of the amendment:


Support the Sanders Federal Reserve Transparency Amendment to the Financial Reform Bill

The American people have a right to know who received over $2 Trillion in financial assistance from the Federal Reserve.

Since the beginning of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has provided over $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed loans and other financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the world. Unfortunately, the Fed is still refusing to tell the American people or the Congress who received most of this assistance, how much they received or what they are doing with this money. This money does not belong to the Federal Reserve, it belongs to the American people, and the American people have a right to know where their taxpayer dollars are going.

Therefore, during the consideration of the financial reform bill, we will offer an amendment to increase transparency at the Federal Reserve. Specifically, our amendment:

* Requires the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct an independent and comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve within one year after the date of enactment of the financial reform bill;

* Requires the GAO to submit a report to Congress detailing its findings and conclusion of their independent audit of the Fed within 3 months; and

* Requires the Federal Reserve within one month after the date of enactment to disclose the names of the financial institutions and foreign central banks that received financial assistance from the Fed since the start of the recession, how much they received, and the exact terms of this taxpayer assistance.

* Does not interfere with or dictate the monetary policies or decisions of the Federal Reserve.
59 Senators, 320 Members of Congress, and two federal courts have called on the Federal Reserve to become more transparent.

Our amendment is similar to an amendment that was offered to last year's Budget Resolution that passed the Senate on a bi-partisan vote of 59-39 on April 1, 2009; S.604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act that now has 33 bi-partisan co-sponsors; and the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (H.R. 1207) that has 320 bi-partisan co-sponsors (a version of which passed the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43-28 and was incorporated into the financial reform bill that passed the House last December).

In August of 2009, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York also ordered the Fed to disclose the recipients of this taxpayer assistance as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Bloomberg News. This decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan on March 19, 2010.

The Senate Financial Reform Bill does not do enough to make the Fed more transparent.

While the Senate financial reform bill attempts to address the lack of transparency at the Fed, as currently drafted, much of the information regarding the details of who received this financial assistance could be kept secret forever.

As long as the Federal Reserve is allowed to keep the information on their loans secret, we may never know the true financial condition of the banking system. The lack of transparency at the Fed could lead to an even bigger crisis in the future.

We now know that the lack of transparency in credit default swaps led to the $182 billion taxpayer bailout of AIG; the collapse of Lehman Brothers and precipitated the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

We know who received TARP funding.

Anyone with access to the internet can go onto the Treasury Department's website and find out exactly who received a bail-out from the $700 billion TARP program. The American people have a right to know the same information from the Fed.

The Sanders Amendment does not undermine the Fed's independence.

This amendment does not take away the "independence" of the Fed and it does not put monetary policy into the hands of Congress.

This amendment does not tell the Federal Reserve when to cut short-term interest rates or when to raise them. It does not tell the Federal Reserve what banks to lend money to and what banks not to lend money to. It does not tell the Federal Reserve what foreign central banks they can do business with and which ones it cannot do business with. It does not impose any new regulations on the Federal Reserve nor does it take any regulatory authority away from the Fed.

This amendment simply requires the GAO to conduct an independent audit of the Fed and requires the Fed to release the names of the recipients of more than $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed assistance.

For nearly nine decades, the GAO has a proven track record of conducting objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, non-ideological, fair, and balanced audits. Through these audits, the GAO helped save the American taxpayers $50 billion last year alone by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.

Let's not equate independence with secrecy. We cannot let the Fed operate in secrecy any longer. There is simply too much money at stake.
Read Grayson's memo, followed by the legislative language:

Memo to the Senate: Stop Secret Bailouts by the Fed

Sometimes, you just know that you've struck a nerve. I knew it early last year, when a clip of my questioning the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve over the Fed's balance sheet became the most viewed Congressional hearing in YouTube history. The Fed had lent out around $1 trillion, and I wanted to know what happened to the people's money. So did the people.


They were angry at the Fed, and they showed it. And because of that righteous anger, the financial reform bill in the House contains a provision to audit the Federal Reserve fully. If it passes the Senate, we will finally know to whom the Fed lent our money, how much, and what little we got in return.


So it's up to the Senate. The Senate has a provision in its reform bill that purports to audit the Fed. But, it really doesn't do anything of the sort. I'm going to run down the details for you, and reprint the legislative language so you can read it yourself. But the story is simple; if the House version of a Fed audit passes, we will finally know to whom the Fed lent our money. If the Senate version passes, the Fed can continue to make sweetheart loans to whomever it wants, without telling Congress or the public.


The way Congress oversees complicated government agencies is through the Congressional audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO does the actual auditing, and gives that information to Congress, which then holds hearings and makes policy. The House bill grants the GAO the authority to audit the Fed, and then releases that information to Congress with a six-month delay, to prevent traders from gaming the system.


The Senate version only allows the GAO to audit a certain part of the Federal Reserve, its emergency lending facilities. The GAO already has some of that authority. Amazingly, the Senate version forces the GAO to withhold this information from the public, and Congress, for as long as the Federal Reserve chooses.


The details, and the specific legislative language, are below.


Limited Audit Authority


What the Senate bill allows:
- The Senate language slightly expands existing authority to the GAO to audit only the emergency lending authority in section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, but only for specific purposes.


- The Senate language would grant the GAO authority to audit the TALF program.
What the bill does NOT allow:
- The Senate language does not allow audits of the mortgage backed security purchase program, a $1.25 trillion program that at this point comprises the bulk of the Fed's balance sheet. This program includes Freddie and Fannie backed debt.


- The Senate language does not allow audits of possible losses on foreign currency swap lines, of which there were more than $500 billion at the height of the crisis. This includes unlimited credit lines granted to central banks all over the world, solely through at the discretion of Federal Reserve and without the input of any elected official or the State Department.


- The Senate language does not allow audits of open market operations, where there is ample room for errors, market manipulation, and insider trading violations.


- The Senate language does not allow audits of possible losses on securities acquired through non-section 13(3) facilities. This includes looking for possible losses, seigniorage, political conflicts and costs to the Treasury.
Federal Reserve Secrecy
- In the Senate version, all audits must remain redacted. The GAO can't even tell Congress to whom the Fed is lending money, the amounts it is lending, or any details about collateral or assets held in connection with any credit facility.


- The GAO can never release a full version of any audit unless the Federal Reserve first chooses to shut down the audited credit facility.


- Once the Federal Reserve shuts down the authority for the credit facility, the GAO still has to wait a year before it can release details about that facility. If the Fed simply chooses to stop making loans, but does not eliminate the authority to make loans, the GAO has to wait three years before it can release a full report. The Fed can at any point during this period choose to restart the facility, and thereby prevent the release of a full report.
See for yourself. The legislative language in the Senate draft is here.


Sec. 714. Audit of Financial Institutions Examination Council,


Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve banks, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Comptroller of the Currency
(a) In this section, "agency" means the Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (in this section referred to as the `Board'), Federal Reserve Banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision.
(b) Under regulations of the Comptroller General, the Comptroller General shall audit an agency, but may carry out an onsite examination of an open insured bank or bank holding company only if the appropriate agency has consented in writing. Audits of the Board and Federal reserve banks may not include -
   (1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or non-private international financing organization;
   (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;
   (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
   (4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection.
(c)(1) Except as provided in this subsection, an officer or employee of the Government Accountability Office may not disclose information identifying an open bank, an open bank holding company, or a customer of an open or closed bank or bank holding company. The Comptroller General may disclose information related to the affairs of a closed bank or closed bank holding company identifying a customer of the closed bank or closed bank holding company only if the Comptroller General believes the customer had a controlling influence in the management of the closed bank or closed bank holding company or was related to or affiliated with a person or group having a controlling influence.
   (2) An officer or employee of the Office may discuss a customer, bank, or bank holding company with an official of an agency and may report an apparent criminal violation to an appropriate law enforcement authority of the United States Government or a State.
   (3) Except as provided under paragraph (4), an officer or employee of the Government Accountability Office may not disclose to any person outside the Government Accountability Office information obtained in audits or examinations conducted under subsection (e) and maintained as confidential by the Board or the Federal Reserve banks.
   (4) This subsection shall not--
      (A) authorize an officer or employee of an agency to withhold information from any committee or subcommittee of jurisdiction of Congress, or any member of such committee or subcommittee; or
      (B) limit any disclosure by the Government Accountability Office to any committee or subcommittee of jurisdiction of Congress, or any member of such committee or subcommittee.
      (d)(1) To carry out this section, all records and property of or used by an agency, including samples of reports of examinations of a bank or bank holding company the Comptroller General considers statistically meaningful and workpapers and correspondence related to the reports shall be made available to the Comptroller General. The Comptroller General shall have access to the officers, employees, contractors, and other agents and representatives of an agency and any entity established by an agency at any reasonable time as the Comptroller General may request. The Comptroller General may make and retain copies of such books, accounts, and other records as the Comptroller General determines appropriate. The Comptroller General shall give an agency a current list of officers and employees to whom, with proper identification, records and property may be made available, and who may make notes or copies necessary to carry out an audit.
      (2) The Comptroller General shall prevent unauthorized access to Records, copies of any Record, or property of or used by an agency that the Comptroller General obtains during an audit.
      (3)(A) For purposes of conducting audits and examinations under subsection (e), the Comptroller General shall have access, upon request, to any information, data, schedules, books, accounts, financial records, reports, files, electronic communications, or other papers, things or property belonging to or in use by--
      "(i) any entity established by any action taken by the Board described under subsection (e);
      "(ii) any entity receiving assistance from any action taken by the Board described under subsection (e), to the extent that the access and request relates to that assistance; and
      (iii) the officers, directors, employees, independent public accountants, financial advisors and any and all representatives of any entity described under clause (i) or (ii); to the extent that the access and request relates to that assistance;
      (B) The Comptroller General shall have access as provided under subparagraph (A) at such time as the Comptroller General may request.
      (C) Each contract, term sheet, or other agreement between the Board or any Federal reserve bank (or any entity established by the Board or any Federal reserve bank) and an entity receiving assistance from any action taken by the Board described under subsection (e) shall provide for access by the Comptroller General in accordance with this paragraph.
      (e) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the Comptroller General may conduct audits, including onsite examinations when the Comptroller General determines such audits and examinations are appropriate, of any action taken by the Board under the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 343); with respect to a single and specific partnership or corporation.'
      (f) REVIEWS OF CREDIT FACILITIES OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.--
      (1) DEFINITION.--In this subsection, the term 'credit facility' means any utility, facility, or program authorized by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 343), including any special purpose vehicle or other entity established by or on behalf of the Board of Governors or a Federal reserve bank, that is not subject to audit under subsection (e), including--
      (A) the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility;
      (B) the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility;
      (C) the Primary Dealer Credit Facility;
      (D) the Commercial Paper Funding Facility; and
      (E) the Term Securities Lending Facility.
      (2) AUTHORITY FOR REVIEWS AND EXAMINATIONS.--Subject to paragraph (3), and notwithstanding any limitation in subsection (b) on the auditing and oversight of certain functions of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any Federal reserve bank, the Comptroller General of the United States may conduct reviews, including onsite examinations, of the Board of Governors, a Federal reserve bank, or a credit facility, if the Comptroller General determines that such reviews are appropriate, solely for the purposes of assessing, with respect to a credit facility--
       (A) the operational integrity, accounting, financial reporting, and internal controls of the credit facility;
      (B) the effectiveness of the collateral policies established for the facility in mitigating risk to the relevant Federal reserve bank and taxpayers;
      (C) whether the credit facility inappropriately favors one or more specific participants over other institutions eligible to utilize the facility; and
      (D) the policies governing the use, selection, or payment of third-party contractors by or for any credit facility.
      (3) REPORTS AND DELAYED DISCLOSURE.--
      (A) REPORTS REQUIRED.--A report on each review conducted under paragraph 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 review is completed.
      (B) CONTENTS.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusions of the Comptroller General with respect to the matters described in paragraph (2) that were reviewed and are the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action relating to such matters as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.
      (C) DELAYED RELEASE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION.--
      (i) IN GENERAL.--The Comptroller General shall not disclose to any person or entity, including to Congress, the names or identifying details of specific participants in any credit facility, the amounts borrowed by specific participants in any credit facility, or identifying details regarding assets or collateral held by, under, or in connection with any credit facility, and any report provided under subparagraph (A) shall be redacted to ensure that such names and details are not disclosed.
      (ii) DELAYED RELEASE.--The non-disclosure obligation under clause (i) shall expire with respect to any participant on the date on which the Board of Governors, directly or through a Federal reserve bank, publicly discloses the identity of the subject participant or the identifying details of the subject assets or collateral.
      (iii) GENERAL RELEASE.--The Comptroller General shall release a non redacted version of any report on a credit facility 1 year after the effective date of the termination by the Board of Governors of the authorization for the credit facility. For purposes of this clause, a credit facility shall be deemed to have terminated 24 months after the date on which the credit facility ceases to make extensions of credit and loans, unless the credit facility is otherwise terminated by the Board of Governors.
      (iv) EXCEPTIONS.--The nondisclosure obligation under clause (i) shall not apply to the credit facilities Maiden Lane, Maiden Lane II, and Maiden Lane III.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Dodd Bill Gives Fed New Oversight Powers

Fed gets new oversight powers under Dodd bill
Kevin Drawbaugh and Rachelle Younglai
WASHINGTON
Sun Mar 14, 2010

(Reuters) - The Federal Reserve would win sweeping new powers over nonbank financial firms and keep much of its authority over banks, under revised legislation to be unveiled on Monday by the chief architect of financial reform in the Senate.

In a remarkable recovery by the U.S. central bank after a steep drop in its political popularity, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd was poised to release a bill that leans heavily on the Fed, sources said on Sunday.

Not only would a new government watchdog for financial consumers be housed within the Fed, but it would also retain much of its present authority over large bank holding companies and gain new authority over selected nonbank financial firms.

Dodd's bill would give the Fed authority to supervise bank holding companies with more than $50 billion in assets, down from an earlier threshold of $100 billion, sources said.

The bill may also preserve the Fed's power over state-chartered banks with less than $50 billion in assets that are already in the Federal Reserve system, a source said. An earlier proposal had called for transferring responsibility for supervising such banks to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

That would put hundred of banks under the Fed's purview, including such giants as Bank of America and Citigroup, as well as branches of foreign banks, a source said.

The bill from Dodd, a Democrat, would also empower the central bank to supervise nonbank firms designated as "systemically important" by a council of regulators.

Before it became the poster-child for bailouts, former insurance giant American International Group (AIG) would have fit into that category, for instance.

Revamping how the financial system is supervised is one of the Obama administration's top priorities. Since the worst financial crisis in decades tipped the U.S. economy into a deep recession and sent shock waves across world markets, the United States and the European Union have been pursuing reforms.

The White House unveiled a sweeping package of proposals in mid-2009. The House of Representatives approved most of them in December in a massive piece of legislation that passed without a single Republican vote of support.

But with lobbyists for banks and Wall Street working hard to block or weaken reforms, the Senate has yet to act. With congressional elections approaching in November, Dodd is under intense pressure to push a bill through his committee and onto the Senate floor before political campaigns take center stage.

TURNAROUND BY DODD ON FED

Dodd sharply criticized the Fed last year for regulatory failures. In an early draft of his own reform plan, he proposed stripping the central bank of bank supervision and consumer protection duties, leaving it focused almost exclusively on its role as a monetary policy center.

But Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, other Fed insiders and some banking interests have pushed back hard in recent months to shield the institution, and it appears to have worked.

At the same time that he is proposing new powers for the Fed, Dodd is also considering changes to how regional Federal Reserve bank directors are chosen, a source said.

He also plans to put President Barack Obama's proposed financial consumer watchdog in the Fed. To win support among Democrats for the idea, he will give the watchdog considerable power and autonomy, sources said.

Dodd wants the banking committee to work on his new bill before April, but Republicans have already told him they want sufficient time to consider the legislation.

Dodd's bill will attempt to put an end to a market perception that some financial firms are too big to fail after the government used billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to rescue firms such as AIG.

There is agreement that a fund of about $50 billion should be created to help pay for the cost of unwinding large troubled firms.

Dodd is also expected to give market regulators the authority to regulate the $450 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market with some narrow exemptions.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Obama May Compromise on Consumer Agency to Pass Financial Regulation, Please Bankers

Oh, good! Obama just might capitulate AGAIN to the bankers. A government by the bankers, for the bankers. Who knew the banks got the exact man they wanted in the White House? I would have thought they'd rather have a Republican, but  they own both parties, anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.


Obama May Compromise on Consumer Agency to Pass Financial Regulation, Please Bankers
by David Cho and Brady Dennis

The Obama administration is no longer insisting on the creation of a stand-alone consumer protection agency as a central element of the plan to remake regulation of the financial system.


In hopes of quick congressional approval of a reform bill, White House officials are opening the door to compromise with lawmakers concerned about creating a new bureaucracy, according to congressional and some administration sources. 

President Obama's economic team is now open to housing the consumer regulator inside another agency, such as the Treasury Department, though they still prefer a stand-alone agency. In either case, they are insisting on a regulator with political autonomy and real teeth so it can effectively enforce rules designed to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other financial products. 

The administration may also have to compromise on Obama's recent proposal for a rule to limit risky activities at banks by prohibiting them from engaging in many kinds of speculative investments. 

Treasury officials are preparing to send Capitol Hill a toughly worded measure that would bar banks from making certain investments that benefit only the firms' bottom line rather than their customers. But there is little support among either Democratic or Republican lawmakers for this proposal, known as the "Volcker rule," and Senate leaders are now closing ranks around legislation that would leave it to banking regulators, rather than the law, to decide which activities to ban. 

From the start of the Obama presidency, administration officials have made far-reaching financial reform one of their highest priorities, along with overhauling the nation's health-care system. Officials have vowed to put in place new rules and regulators to prevent a repeat of the abuses that precipitated the financial crisis. 

Even as the administration is showing new flexibility, some senior executives in the financial industry have also been coming around, easing some of their intensive lobbying against the regulatory overhaul. Instead of trying to block the proposals for a consumer protection agency and curbs on risky investment practices, these executives are working more closely with Democrats to secure a deal the banks can live with. 

After the White House escalated its attacks on Wall Street earlier this year, some executives concluded that the swift passage of a regulatory reform bill would be in their best interest because it would move them out of the political cross hairs, industry officials said. The adoption of a new bill would also resolve much of the uncertainty about the rules to govern the financial industry, allowing companies to make business decisions with more confidence. 

According to some industry officials, Wall Street executives also sense that they now have a better chance for a relatively favorable bill because the administration is in a hurry to record a major legislative achievement before congressional elections in November. At the same time, some financial lobbyists said they were afraid the administration would unilaterally impose strict new measures on the industry if Congress could not come up with a bill. 

The new momentum has raised hopes within the administration that a bill could be signed before the elections. But the path is still not clear. Administration officials and Democratic leaders have been seeking to win support from Republicans, who could filibuster the bill, without alienating liberals insisting on a new consumer protection agency and tough restraints on Wall Street activities. 

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who is shepherding the effort in the Senate, said Wednesday evening that there is still no final agreement between Democrats and Republicans, and aides said that many vital details remain unresolved. 

"Dodd is willing to be flexible, but there's a limit to that flexibility," said one Senate aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because talks are ongoing. "Both sides are going to have to learn to live with things that aren't exactly how they would have written it." 

Still, major components of the measure are beginning to take shape. 

Michael S. Barr, Treasury's assistant secretary for financial institutions, delivered a speech Tuesday that repeated the need for a consumer financial regulator with broad enforcement powers. Absent, however, was a call for a stand-alone, agency -- an intentional omission, a source familiar with the matter said. 

A free-standing agency had been a central part of the original blueprint released by the Obama administration, which said it is essential to have one agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers from lending abuses. In the lead-up to the financial crisis, that responsibility was spread across numerous agencies and often took a back seat to ensuring the well-being of banks. A version of the stand-alone proposal was included in a bill passed by the House in December. 

Dodd has expressed some support for the plan. But Republicans on his committee have said that such an agency would clash with the separate set of regulators overseeing the health of financial firms. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has been working with Dodd on a revised Senate bill, has called the idea a "non-starter." 

The two men have been exploring solutions that both sides could embrace. On Wednesday night, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner huddled with Corker and Dodd to go over the work the two senators have been doing on regulatory reform. Only Dodd would comment on their meeting, saying, "There's no deal tonight," but adding that he remained optimistic.

In one scenario under discussion, a consumer bureau would be set up within the Treasury Department. In another, a consumer protection division would be established inside a new national agency to regulate banks. 

The latter idea would upset some consumer advocates, who say they do not want the consumer regulator to answer to bank supervisors. Advocates say these supervisors have shoddy records on shielding customers from abusive financial practices. 

Dodd's legislation, which he is expecting to unveil next week, is also likely to strip the Federal Reserve of much of its authority to supervise banks, government sources said. Few on Capitol Hill want to take up the unpopular cause of defending the central bank, which lawmakers say not only ignored the warning signs of the financial crisis but also has been aloof from the problems of ordinary Americans. 
 
Dodd's bill is also set to include updated language giving the government authority to wind down large, troubled financial firms in extreme cases, congressional and industry officials said. The measure will make bankruptcy the preferred route when firms run into trouble. The government's resolution mechanism would serve as a backstop and possibly could be overseen by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.