Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 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. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and on behalf of--would the Chair please restate the request. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) The Senator seeks permission to call up amendment No. 3744.

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

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am about to make a unanimous consent request, and I will describe what I am going to request first so Members are aware of this. Senators Merkley and Levin, along with many others, over the past number of weeks have worked very hard to develop an amendment dealing with proprietary trading; that is, to ban the use of depositors' monies for excessive risk taking on the part of financial institutions. This is a complicated area, we all admit and acknowledge. It takes a lot of work. The Treasury Department has been involved, and many others in this Chamber, who have had a strong interest in supporting the efforts of Senator Merkley and Senator Levin, have crafted and worked on this. We wish to have a vote on that amendment, even, in fact, just a 50 vote, up and down. Over the last 3 or 4 weeks, I have been happy to have more amendments. I think some 40 or 45 amendments have been considered in this Chamber, the overwhelming majority on a simple 50- vote margin. Some have required 60 votes, I acknowledge that. But I am being told that even a 60-vote requirement on this amendment would be objected to. I think that is terribly unfortunate. This is a critical piece of financial reform. To exclude it, or even the ability to vote on it, I think would be wrong. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and that amendment No. 4101 be called up.

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

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order be the following: Grassley-McCaskill amendment No. 4072 and Bingaman amendment No. 3892; that the Bingaman amendment be modified with the changes at the desk; that a Lincoln amendment as a side-by-side to the Bingaman amendment also be in order; and that Senators Grassley and McCaskill each be recognized for a period of 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD. I have no objection to that. First of all, can we get the first unanimous consent agreed to, to deal with those two amendments; that is, Grassley and Bingaman?

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

Mr. DODD. Let me say to my colleague, we have been on this bill now for 3 or 4 weeks. We have considered almost 50 amendments. I have a list of about 49 amendments I sent to the minority several days ago, including amendments offered by Democrats, Republicans, some of them bipartisan amendments, that I would be more than willing to accept. I know the minority is looking at them, and they may accept some and reject others. There is that group of amendments. We have a list of about 20 different amendments here, some of which are, like my friend's from North Dakota, controversial amendments that I would like the opportunity to debate and bring up. The difficulty of managing from this seat is that, obviously, once consent is given for an amendment to be pending, it takes consent then to lay it aside and move forward. Then we turn over to any one Member of this Chamber the ability to veto virtually all other amendments because it takes unanimous consent by this Chamber to agree to proceed to something else. So what it does is allow one Senator to tie up----

Mr. DODD. Certainly.

Mr. DODD. As my colleague knows, I happen to be supportive of trying to get to his amendment, trying to negotiate so we can get his amendment up at this point. There are also other amendments we might be able to clear out of the way before we do that. If we stop everything from moving before we get this matter resolved, of course, it deprives others of having a chance to have an amendment considered. That is the effect of it. Again, the Senator has the right to do it, obviously, objecting to anything going forward. Any one Senator can do that. My colleague has as much right as anyone else to do it, but there is an effect on a lot of other amendments to that. I certainly would not argue about the Senator's right to do it, but the consequence of it is such that other amendments then do not go forward.

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. Again, my colleague has a right to object if he decides to do so. I just explained what the consequences are of that decision. That is all.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, let me commend my colleagues from Iowa and Missouri for raising an issue of this importance. Senator Menendez of our committee, the Senator from New Jersey, has an interest in the subject matter, I explain to my good friends and colleagues from Iowa and Missouri, and he may want to be heard on this amendment. I understand the purpose and the intent, and in many respects I agree with my colleagues from Iowa and Missouri. But in fairness to my colleague from New Jersey, I wish to give him a chance to respond, as a member of our Banking Committee. So if we could just pause for a few minutes and give him an opportunity to come to the floor and say why he believes the existing language in the bill has merit, I would appreciate that. So I wish to suggest the absence of a quorum and give him a chance to come on over and make his case. Then, hopefully, we can get to a vote. In the meantime, I do not know if Senator Bingaman is here or others are here who would like to be heard on the Bingaman amendment and the side-by-side I think being offered as well. That would certainly be a useful use of the time. People could go and discuss that particular proposition while we are waiting to hear from Senator Menendez. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand the amendment is dealing with the Congo that is being offered by my colleague from Kansas and the Senator from Maryland. Is that correct?

Mr. DODD. This is a good amendment and one that I believe has great value. It has been agreed to across the spectrum in the Senate. So if we can get a quick voice vote, I am prepared to do so.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 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. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Michigan is absolutely correct and that was the point I made earlier and she makes it even more strongly. Again, I don't want to sound like I am in a civics class, but we are not just sort of a collection of disparate States and communities, we are a country, we are one Nation. It has been a great source of our strength. Our country has been through difficult times periodically, obviously through some natural disasters, through some manmade disasters. We are dealing with one as we speak. That is not a natural disaster occurring in the Gulf of Mexico; that is a manmade one. People didn't put in the proper safeguards and all of a sudden we are looking at the worst environmental disaster maybe in our Nation's history. What do we say to the States of Louisiana or Alabama or Florida, depending upon where these currents flow, and all of a sudden we find major industries--tourism, for instance, in the State of Florida. I don't know what percentage of the economy of that State depends upon tourism, but I suspect a pretty heavy number. All of a sudden beaches are closed on the west coast of Florida. Maybe that current brings it around to the east coast. All of a sudden hotels and resort areas are shut down. The economy begins to falter. A manmade disaster, created through the fault of some engineers or whoever else, of an oil company: What do we say if this amendment was adopted? I am sorry, Florida. It is in danger of defaulting or at risk of defaulting on its obligations because the revenues that would come into that State through the normal exercise of its business practices was affected not by a natural disaster but by one created through the fault, malfeasance or misfeasance of a company that caused this kind of danger--or Louisiana, which has already been through a natural disaster and is now facing this one, or Alabama as well and its coastline. So, again, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I thank my colleague from Michigan for making her points. I reserve the remainder of my time, yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally between the two sides.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cantwell and others, I ask unanimous consent to send a modification to the desk.

Mr. DODD. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to propound a unanimous consent request. It has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate consider the following two amendments: Senator Corker of Tennessee, amendment No. 4034, and Senator Carper of Delaware, amendment No. 4071, which is side-by-side to the Corker amendment; that the amendments be debated concurrently for a total of 30 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Carper and Corker or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Corker amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Carper amendment, with no amendment in order to either amendment prior to a vote.