In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.

Senator Rand Paul is shrewd to attempt to delay the confirmation of Janet Yellen to become Chairperson of the Federal Reserve - a tactic which seeks a bipartisan vote on his Federal Reserve transparency bill, S. 209. 
  
 Not only should he be commended for the step by Republicans but he should be supported by as many Democrats as possible – which would only be in keeping with the 89 Democrats who contributed to the bi-partisan support of H.R. 459 in 2012 which simply sought to “To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States, and for other purposes,” the exact same language as Rand Paul's S.209 -- Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013. 
  
 There is no way to justify opposition to S. 209 and support of H.R. 459. But I wonder - will Democrats still try to find a way? 
  
 There are two principled arguments against the Federal Reserve System that any American should entertain subscribing to – one is monetary in nature and the other regulatory. 
  
 Republicans and Democrats have diverse points of variance on whether the medium of exchange of this country should be backed by gold or exist as a fiat currency. Fine, as a gold-standard advocate who wants stable money, I don’t mind settling that disagreement at another time. We can bifurcate that temporarily from the regulatory issue. 
  
 However, the argument that the Federal Reserve system should be exempt from any kind of audit can only be viewed as benefiting the elite interests of a banking sector that both sides of the aisle should agree enjoys a privileged monopoly only because Congress erroneously (but not permanently) forfeited its Constitutionally-mandated authority over the nation’s finances. 
  
 The argument that an audit would somehow interfere with the ‘independence’ of U.S. monetary policy is a shell game which obscures the point that all forms of independence are not equal. It is ironic to hear the Right whine over the ‘independence’ of the State to ‘control their lives’ (Obamacare) yet have nothing to say about a Fed that truly operates above the law. So, the electorate is told the subject is off-limits and ideologues on both sides and those who follow them like sheep, accept it on face value either because ‘Big Government’ is the supreme evil (if you are Republican) or because a left-alone Fed Chair Alan Greenspan supposedly aided the ‘Clinton Boom’ (isn’t that essentially what the anemic Democratic defense of the Fed boils down too?). 
  
 Rather than get caught in the matrix of chasing the convoluted arguments of both sides let's focus on two basic questions designed to encourage Republicans and Democrats to think more deeply: 1) why is there so much confusion over whether the Federal Reserve is a privately-owned and controlled system of banks or whether it is a government agency, when the original Federal Reserve Act (now partly omitted from U.S. Code) clearly states in Section 4 that a stock certificate for each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks exists with lists of the private banks which hold it ? And 2) if the Fed is a ‘government agency’ why aren’t any of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks operating under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? 
  
 Though this seems simple, I try not to be too strident because the confusion is due to the fact that part of the Federal Reserve System is governmental in nature – the Federal Reserve Board of Governors based in Washington, D.C.. But most Fed-defenders don’t realize that the real power in the system is skewed toward the 12 Reserve Banks and the New York Fed in particular. In that regard Janet Yellen's powers don't hold a candle to those of New York Fed President William C. Dudley. 
  
 Still more don’t realize that Federal Reserve monetary policy is not executed by the Board of Governors. It is executed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York directing the action of over 20 privately-owned commercial and investment banks in the open market. Though this is denied by Fed-defenders it is detailed by the Federal Reserve . 
  
 As of today here is the list of the 21 banks who according to the Federal Reserve (and not a conspiracy theorist) “(i) participate consistently in open market operations to carry out U.S. monetary policy pursuant to the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC); and (ii) provide the New York Fed's trading desk with market information and analysis helpful in the formulation and implementation of monetary policy.” 
  
 Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency 
  
 BMO Capital Markets Corp. 
  
 BNP Paribas Securities Corp. 
  
 Barclays Capital Inc. 
  
 Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. 
  
 Citigroup Global Markets Inc. 
  
 Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC 
  
 Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc. 
  
 Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. 
  
 Goldman, Sachs & Co. 
  
 HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. 
  
 Jefferies LLC 
  
 J.P. Morgan Securities LLC 
  
 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated 
  
 Mizuho Securities USA Inc. 
  
 Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC 
  
 Nomura Securities International, Inc. 
  
 RBC Capital Markets, LLC 
  
 RBS Securities Inc. 
  
 SG Americas Securities, LLC 
  
 UBS Securities LLC. 
  
 Yes, your eyes do not deceive you. Many of the same banks responsible for the mortgage crisis, securitization fraud, LIBOR improprieties and manipulation of the price of gold are responsible for carrying out U.S. monetary policy and the analysis and information which informs it! 
  
 That any self-respecting Democrat or Republican can argue for Fed-independence in light of this is startling. 
  
 Independent Senator Bernie Sanders brought more of the shenanigans involved in the New York Fed, FOMC, Federal Reserve Bank relationship to light with an amendment over two years ago that resulted in a minor Federal Reserve audit conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). 
  
 Any reasonable person who has gone through the entire GAO document would be forced to conclude that the American people desperately need to know much more about the decisions of the body entrusted with making and regulating monetary policy in this country. 
  
 In a provocative challenge to both the Left and the Right Sen. Sanders concluded, “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world. This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." ||||| By Ed Kilgore 
  
 To those hard-core conservatives enamored of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the last few months have been dispiriting. Not long after a hefty share of Republican Senators were more or less forced to “Stand With Rand” in his 13-hour filibuster against CIA nominee John Brennan, Ted Cruz moved to displace Paul as the champion of conservative militants everywhere, spearheading (along with Mike Lee) the “Defund Obamacare” crusade and besting the Kentuckian’s filibuster (though Cruz’s effort was not, technically, even a filibuster) stamina by a good eight hours. The approbation of the MSM folk and Republican Establishment figures (“Rand Paul has been incredibly responsible,” quoth Lindsey Graham) who noticed, occasionally, that Paul was not howling at the moon during the fiscal fight isn’t worth remotely as much in 2016 coin as the idolatry of “constitutional conservatives.” 
  
 So it’s not terribly surprising that Paul is now making noises about putting a hold on, and then organizing a filibuster against, the nomination of Janet Yellen as Fed chairman, linked to a demand that legislation reflecting his father’s longstanding “Audit the Fed!” battle cry come to a Senate vote. 
  
 There are, unfortunately, two dangers Paul will court if he pursues this course of action. One is that he’ll help reinforce the dirty little secret of Republican monetary policy views: the GOP largely favors a deflationary approach at a time when the Fed’s stimulus program is widely perceived as the only thing propping up an anemic economic recovery. And the second more immediate problem is that financial markets will not smile on any effort to rebuff Yellen and destabilize Fed policy. Mere rumors of Paul’s move to put Yellen’s nomination on hold caused a market tremor just this morning. 
  
 If Paul follows through on his threat, it will indicate either a strong fidelity to his old man’s agenda, or some serious jealousy of Ted Cruz’ growing reputation as the wild man of the Senate. ||||| CNBC's Steve Liesman reports Sen. Rand Paul has threatened to put Janet Yellen's Fed nomination on hold in exchange for an audit of the Federal Reserve. 
  
 Sen. Rand Paul is threatening to put a hold on the nomination of Janet Yellen to chair the Federal Reserve, a source close to the Kentucky Republican said Friday. 
  
 Paul is insisting on a vote on his Fed transparency bill, and has informed Senate leadership of his intentions, the source said. 
  
 "As part of Senate consideration of the Janet Yellen nomination to be Chair of the Federal Reserve, I will request a vote on my bipartisan Federal Reserve Transparency Act, S. 209. The American people deserve transparency from the federal reserve and the federal government as a whole," Paul said in a statement following the reports. 
  
  
  
 A Senate Democratic aide told CNBC on Friday morning that the ability of Paul to single-handedly block the nomination "should not be overstated." Paul would need 40 other senators to back his effort to block Yellen's nomination; otherwise, Senate leadership could defeat his blocking effort. 
  
 Although hearings have not yet been scheduled, the aide said the leadership at this point is confident the nomination will succeed. 
  
  
  
 Paul intends to formally put the hold in place next week, once the Senate is back in session, the source added. 
  
 Markets gave back some of their earlier gains on the report. ( Click here for the latest on the markets). |||||
Janet Yellen is still expected to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve, but CNBC reports that she might hit some turbulence in the Senate thanks to Rand Paul. He's threatening to do what he can to hold up the nomination unless he gets a vote on his Fed transparency bill—a measure long championed by his Fed-hating dad, Ron Paul, that would require a full audit of the agency. Still, Paul would need 40 fellow senators to block the nomination, and that doesn't look likely. Some reaction: Bad move: Financial markets hiccupped today on just the rumor of such an action, writes Ed Kilgore at Washington Monthly. And "if Paul follows through on his threat, it will indicate either a strong fidelity to his old man’s agenda, or some serious jealousy of Ted Cruz’ growing reputation as the wild man of the Senate." Good move: Cedric Muhammad at Forbes thinks Paul is correct and should get the support of Democrats as well. "The argument that the Federal Reserve system should be exempt from any kind of audit can only be viewed as benefiting the elite interests of a banking sector that both sides of the aisle should agree enjoys a privileged monopoly only because Congress erroneously (but not permanently) forfeited its Constitutionally-mandated authority over the nation’s finances."