Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open today until 1:30 p.m. for the introduction of legislation, submissions of statements, and cosponsorships.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 510, submitted earlier today.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we are beginning debate on the floor of the Senate of a matter that has obviously been the subject of great discussion and debate over the last couple years. My remarks will be very brief. I have talked a lot over the last week or so about the bill. I presume I will be spending a lot of time in the coming days. I do not need to spend a lot of time now. My colleague and friend from Alabama, Senator Shelby, wants to be heard and others want to be heard this afternoon. I will be here to engage them. I begin by thanking and commending my colleague from Alabama. We have disagreements about this bill. He is a good friend and someone I work with closely, as we will on this bill as we move forward. We want to accommodate Members on all sides to be heard, to offer their amendments, to have a good debate. We would like to accommodate and accept amendments where we can. If we cannot, we will try to lay out why or offer alternative ideas as we move through this debate. Obviously, it is very important we get this right. Senator Shelby has said that many times, and I agree with him. It is very important. Literally, language, punctuation marks can have implications. It is that delicate as we work through language. My intention is to get there. Today we are going to have general debate on the bill; tomorrow possibly some additional debate. We will pick up our first amendments on Tuesday when we get back. I wish to address that point in a minute, if I may. I wish to begin the debate with a message for those who have seen the acrimony in the Chamber over the past couple weeks and have concluded that the Senate is not up to getting the job done on legislation of this import and this size. I will be the first to admit that sometimes we become discouraged and disappointed with each other. That is the nature, I suppose, of a legislative body when we have as many different and strongly held views. I, myself, was frustrated with how long it took to bring the bill up on the floor. Others are frustrated by what they see in the bill. All of this can be a rationale for why we express our frustration. The thing that made it possible to get to this point is the same thing that will make it possible to get to the finish line on this important legislation; that is, the trust we have, that we are each committed to getting the job done. As Senator Shelby and I both pointed out last evening, we have worked closely over the past 37 months that I have chaired the Banking Committee. I mentioned we brought 42 measures out of our committee, 37 of which have become the law of the land. While we do not agree on this bill or at least not all of it, we are both confident this legislation can become law as well if we work hard and together and achieve common ground, even if it is not exactly as we would want if we were writing it on our own. I think it is what our colleagues in the country think of us. Simply put, we have no other choice but to do so. The status quo is unacceptable. We cannot leave the American people vulnerable to the present construct of our financial regulatory system. The American people have paid too high a price for the failure of our system to stop Wall Street greed and recklessness from undermining the stability of our economy. We heard over and over that we have lost 8.5 million jobs and 7 million homes lost to foreclosure or are in foreclosure. Trillions of dollars--some say $11 trillion, some say $13 trillion, some say higher--trillions of dollars of household wealth has been lost in the last 18 months; home values--again, the number everyone agrees on--a 37 percent decline in home values across the Nation. In some States, the numbers are much higher. We have seen a decline in retirement income by some 20 percent as well across the Nation. All this was not cause by one particular event or set of circumstances. There was a variety of circumstances, the culmination of which and the expansion brought us to the brink of financial collapse and disaster. I described the aims of our legislation. First, it ends ``too big to fail.'' Senator Shelby and I have been working on that issue. We have had long discussions agreeing on principles and what needs to be done. My hope is, in the first part of next week--our staffs are going to work over the weekend to take the principles on which we have reached some agreements and then do the delicate job of writing the language that reflects those principles and ideas. I thank my staff as well as Senator Shelby's staff for trying to get us to a point where we reach a level of comfort, that we have done what we said we were going to do; that is, to end too big to fail. No longer will there be an implicit understanding that if a major financial institution or even a less-than-major financial institution starts to fail somehow it is going to get propped up by taxpayer dollars. Our colleague from California, Barbara Boxer--we heard already the language of her amendment which will once again add a voice to this effort to say, when losses occur, too big to fail will never expose the American taxpayers to writing a check to have to underwrite that cost. I presume there may be others who have ideas on how best to nail this down. We welcome those ideas. Again, Senator Shelby and I will work on an amendment we intend to offer the first part of next week that reflects those values as well. I thank him and his staff and others for the time already spent. I cannot count the hours we have spent sitting with each other, talking about these ideas and how best to achieve them. Obviously, we want to involve as well the Treasury Department and others for their advice and counsel because they ultimately will be asked to implement a lot of what we have talked about. We will be busy over the coming days as well on those issues. Senator Boxer's idea--I discussed this with Senator Shelby already, and without committing anyone at all, there seems to be, at least at this juncture, a relatively good response or reaction to what she intends to do. Too big to fail has been a subject of major conversation. We all agree what we want to achieve. The question is, Can we do this? I am confident we can. I would like us to begin on a positive note as well. There will be times during this debate where we will be at very different sides. That will happen, as it should be. There is nothing wrong with that. I think it is better to begin a process where you can agree on issues and sit down and come to common understandings. Too big to fail is an area where there is no disagreement about what we are trying to achieve. That is a great starting point. My hope is we can do that in the coming days. We create an early warning system. This has not been the subject of a lot of debate. I think we all agree that to have the ability to watch and monitor what is occurring, both domestically and internationally, is very important. We have established what we call a systemic risk council that will allow us to observe what is occurring on a regular basis so we can spot these problems before they metastasize and grow into, as we have seen, problems that created as much harm for our economy as the present recession has. I will not go into the details of it, but I think there is a general agreement that this makes a lot of sense. We bring derivatives out of the shadow and into the sunlight so Wall Street is accountable for actions. I do not sense a lot of disagreement on what we are trying to achieve. There is some disagreement on about how this is best worked. I am hopeful that in the coming weeks we can resolve these differences as we deal with these exotic instruments. Clearly, getting more sunshine, more transparency we think will be a great asset as well. Finally, we put cops on the beat with consumer protection so Americans can make smart decisions based on full information when they are planning for their financial futures. There is general agreement having a consumer protection agency or bureau or division makes sense. There is disagreement on what the powers of that agency will be, how it should operate, how it can be working. We have to work on that issue to see if we can reach common ground. If not, we will have votes on whether one is for it or against it, with additions or subtractions, what it can do and over what jurisdiction it has authority. These are the principles. There is not much disagreement with what we are trying to achieve but there will be on how best to do it in certain areas. There may be disagreements on how to actually accomplish these goals. I said before that we agreed to move forward on this bill and that I will allow each Member in this Chamber to offer his or her suggestions, air their concerns, vote up or down on ideas. What I would like to see occur during this debate is not only are we taking on a large issue, but this institution has been damaged over the last number of years. It amounts to this: Senator Jon Kyl and I engaged in a colloquy the other day--not a planned one--about the issue of trust, which is what people are concerned about. We need to restore that trust if we can. It is incumbent we try to understand each other's motives, not question them, and then deal effectively with ideas as they come up. My hope is not only will we end up with a good bill at the end of all this, but we can also end up repairing some of the tensions and stress that exists in this legislative body. When I said I want Members to be able to offer their amendments, to debate those amendments, and have votes on those amendments, I mean it--I know my colleague from Alabama shares that view as well--and that people with limited time--obviously, we do not want filibustering occurring--ought to have it to express those ideas and then vote on the ideas. I mentioned last night the amendment proposed by Senator Boxer. I have discussed that amendment already. Others will have amendments to come next week as well. I cannot promise that the final product will be a bill that all 100 Senators will feel they can support. I understand that. But my goal is to get the best, most effective legislation we can. My belief is we can make that happen by acting like Senators, listening to each other, ensuring our debate is as civil as it is passionate, as factual as it is fierce. To paraphrase our President: We did not ask for the job of saving our financial system from its inefficiencies and excesses, but that is our job today. That is what we have been asked to do. I have the greatest confidence in my colleagues that we can get that job done. I look forward, again, to working with my colleague and friend, Senator Shelby, moving forward as well with the leadership and others to achieve the desired results with this bill. I yield the floor to my colleague and friend from Alabama.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, other than what you heard from my good friend from Alabama, he likes the bill. So we will have some work to do. Let me again assure him and my colleagues here that we have had very productive talks, my friend from Alabama and I, particularly in the too-big-to-fail area. My two colleagues, Mark Warner and Bob Corker, did a tremendous amount of work in our committee over many weeks as we divided the labor to try to address these issues as thoroughly and as comprehensively as possible. I think we have done that work, but I respect the fact that others may have additional ideas to make this work even better. I know he raised the issue here, and we are going to try to work over this weekend to try to put together the legal language, the language that has to be drafted here, to reflect some of these ideas we can incorporate as part of this bill. My colleague and friend from Alabama has my word on that. We will work on that to do that. Again, I thank him. We have worked well together over these last 37 months. I make this offer to my colleagues too. I just had a brief conversation with Senator Chambliss. I say this on my own behalf, but I hope Senator Shelby might agree with me. If Members have amendments, it would help, even in the next day or so, if you could let us know what those amendments are. Even though we may not get to them for a while, we can start to work with our colleagues on their ideas. We may be able to accept some. I see my colleague from Arkansas here, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I don't know whether she shares that view, but it would be helpful. If people have ideas, the earlier we know about them, the better we will be able to respond to them or modify them in some way so they are acceptable. I hope Senators will take advantage of that offer; that the chair of the Agriculture Committee, myself, and I presume Senator Chambliss would share that view as well. Let's see these amendments early on so we can try to be helpful to our colleagues early on, if at all possible. I commend my colleague as chairperson of the Agriculture Committee. She has taken over that job over the last number of months and done a great job at it. I look forward to working with her, hopefully, in the next week or two on this bill as well.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before Senator Chambliss leaves the floor, before we hear from my colleague from Virginia, let me thank both of our colleagues: my colleague from Arkansas who spoke, but also my good friend from Georgia. I thank him immensely for his comments. We have worked together, not as often, and we do not sit on committees together. But we have come to know each other and respect each other immensely. I know he is going to do exactly what we are talking about. This is an opportunity for us not only to get a bill right, but to get this institution right, in a way. It ought to be the way we can conduct ourselves. I have always said, there is nothing wrong with partisanship. In fact, the country was not built on anything but partisanship. It was the contest of ideas. But the ability to have a civil debate in the context of some partisan ideas, with the ultimate goal of resolving those issues so that we reach a common solution, is the purpose for our existence in all this. I have great faith in our ability to do that. I know we will get closer to that because there is a guy named Saxby Chambliss. So I thank him.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before we hear from my colleague from California, I thank Senator Warner of Virginia. He is a relatively new Member of this body and a new member of the committee, but I can't even begin to aptly characterize his contribution to this product. Since day one, he has been at every meeting, been involved in almost every conversation about this bill, particularly the focus that he and Senator Bob Corker agreed to take on in working out title I and title II of the bill dealing with resolution authority and too big to fail. His background, his experience, his knowledge made a wonderful contribution to this product. His interest in other matters is valued as well, because he brings two decades of living in a world in which these matters were something he absolutely grappled with. We have a long journey in front of us in the coming weeks to get through all of this, but his continuing involvement in this Chamber on this subject matter will be invaluable to all of us as we go forward. I thank him for that. Let me thank my colleague from California. She also has a background on this subject matter. She has often talked about it. I thank her for what will be our first amendment on this bill, something I think brings all of us together. I thank her for her energy and interest in the subject.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again, I commend our colleague from California and thank her for her involvement and her ideas and suggestions. Again, it is going to be helpful that we begin with a proposal that I think is going to bring us together. As I said--I cannot speak for others; but at least I have heard, when I have asked people to comment on the Senator's proposal--there seems to be almost unanimity around the Senator's idea. In a debate that is obviously going to have us not with unanimity, as we move forward in a number of areas, I think it is always good to begin where we speak with one voice. I think that common voice is making sure we never again have that too-big-to-fail concept as part of our economic structure. The Senator will be making a significant and historic contribution to this effort, and I thank her.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not have any other requests for time to speak this afternoon on this bill. But it is obviously a leadership call as to what their decisions are to go forward. Again, I want to say to my friend and colleague from Alabama, we have had a very good working relationship, and it will continue through this process. We have already been discussing several ideas. I appreciate Senator Warner raising a couple of issues. The angel investor idea is one that needs to be changed. I know my friend and colleague from Missouri, Kit Bond, has ideas on this as well, and I am going to be getting in touch with him and asking him, along with Senator Warner and others, to work on some language we can add to our bill. I know Senator Corker is working on some ideas as well and, again, we want to be cooperative. A number of my colleagues over here have been submitting amendments, including Ben Cardin and others, Sherrod Brown. I know Senator Sanders has some amendments. We have a lot of ideas that are going to be coming up in the coming days, so we have a lot of work in front of us before we complete action on this bill. Again, I am grateful to Senator Shelby and the other members of the Banking Committee. They have been very helpful over these many months, and we have had long conversations about this. There are a lot of different ideas as to how this all can work, but each and every one of them made a constructive contribution to the process, and I am grateful to them for that. I am very grateful to Leader Reid. Obviously, none of this happens without the involvement of the leader and his very fine staff who have been tremendously helpful in us getting to this point by providing the structure and the organization that allows us to actually begin a debate. Many thought we couldn't even get to this debate. I wish to underscore something Senator Boxer said a few minutes ago. We spent a lot of time over the last 2 weeks; there was a lot of acrimony and finger-pointing as to why we weren't starting. That is behind us. We have now started. Some people want to flyspeck that debate. The fact is, we are on the bill and we are moving forward. That is good news. My hope is, over the next few weeks, we will complete this bill. With that, I will note the absence of a quorum and let the leadership decide what they want to do.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coltsville National Historic Park Act, which provides for the designation of the Coltsville Historic District in Hartford, Connecticut, as a national park. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Lieberman, for supporting this legislation, as well as my good friend, Congressman Larson, who recently introduced an identical version of this bill in the House. I recognize that when most of us think of national parks, we picture the vast, sprawling landscapes of Yellowstone and Yosemite. Clearly, Connecticut's smaller size precludes it from having a national park on the scale of these sites. In fact, Connecticut itself is only about twice the size of Yellowstone National Park and currently has only one national park, the Weir Farm National Historic Site, which spans 60 acres in the towns of Ridgefield and Wilton. But, while Connecticut may not possess the physical grandeur of our nation's largest parks, it is home to a rich national heritage that must be made accessible to every American. Located in Hartford's Sheldon-Charter Oak neighborhood, Coltsville grew around Samuel Colt's firearms factory, a landmark red brick building with a blue onion dome, during the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. Colt made Hartford the center of precision manufacturing. While Americans may associate the name Sam Colt with firearms, the Colt legacy goes far beyond. Colt was a key figure of the Industrial Revolution, contributing to the development of waterproof ammunition, underwater mines, and the telegraph. He was also the first American manufacturer to open a plant overseas. Colt set the standard for a nation that fast became known for its technological innovations and industrial productivity. It is also a little-known fact that after Colt's death in 1862, his widow, Elizabeth Hart Jarvis Colt, successfully managed Colt Industries for 42 years and presided over the company during its most prosperous years in a period when men dominated the industrial world. Today, the Colt armory remains a beacon in the Hartford skyline, and Coltsville still boasts grand Victorian homes, including Armsmear, the home of Sam and Elizabeth Colt. Other nearby attractions include old mill housing, the Church of the Good Shepherd, and the Colt Memorial. A national park at Coltsville would be the main venue on a tour of Hartford that could include sites such as the houses of Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe and the riverfront. It would also be a prime destination for anyone taking an extended tour of historic and scenic New England. A national park at Coltsville would include more than 200 acres and be comprised of both public and private space. The centerpiece would be a museum within the armory celebrating Sam Colt and the growth of American industry. The museum could hold the vast collection of Colt firearms that currently rests in the Museum of Connecticut History as well as other machinery and memorabilia from the Industrial Revolution. Private property which is currently located within the proposed boundaries of the park, such as artists' studios and condominiums, could remain private. In fact, a museum and visitors' center in the Colt armory itself would take up only part of the building, the rest of which could be left open for private development. The armory already houses a business that manufactures replica Colt firearms, which would only enhance the proposed museum. In my capacity as Connecticut's senior Senator, I have fought hard alongside my colleagues in the State's Congressional delegation to help realize the goal of including this testament to America's industrial and manufacturing prowess within the National Park System. In 2003, we were successful in passing legislation that required the National Park Service to conduct a study assessing the feasibility of designating Coltsville as a national park. On July 22, 2008, Coltsville reached another critical milestone in this effort when it was designated as a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior. Unfortunately, Coltsville has not been immune from the devastating effects of the global financial crisis that began later that year. While the Park Service's report, which was finally released last November, found that Coltsville is nationally significant and suitable for inclusion in the Park System, its determination of feasibility largely hinged on the ability of a private developer to manage the site in conjunction with the Park Service. Given the challenges currently facing our Nation's economy, Coltsville has run into some difficulties with this requirement. As a result, the Park Service was unable to conclude that Coltsville met the feasibility standards for inclusion in the Park System. That is why the legislation I introduced today with Senator Lieberman is so timely and important. The Coltsville National Historic Park Act authorizes the establishment of a national park in Coltsville when the feasibility issues outlined in the Park Service's November 2009 study, namely those surrounding private management of the site, are resolved. Our bill also sets standards for administration of the park, and creates a local advisory commission to develop and implement an overarching management plan for the park. This legislative approach is supported by a variety of State and local stakeholders, and in my view, provides us with a great opportunity to jump-start efforts to bring Coltsville into compliance with Park Service feasibility standards. I firmly believe that one of our most important obligations as Senators is to ensure that our Nation's vast array of natural treasures and historical landmarks are managed responsibly and preserved for the benefit of future generations. I urge my colleagues to join me in extending these protections to the Coltsville Historic District.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coltsville National Historic Park Act, which provides for the designation of the Coltsville Historic District in Hartford, Connecticut, as a national park. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Lieberman, for supporting this legislation, as well as my good friend, Congressman Larson, who recently introduced an identical version of this bill in the House. I recognize that when most of us think of national parks, we picture the vast, sprawling landscapes of Yellowstone and Yosemite. Clearly, Connecticut's smaller size precludes it from having a national park on the scale of these sites. In fact, Connecticut itself is only about twice the size of Yellowstone National Park and currently has only one national park, the Weir Farm National Historic Site, which spans 60 acres in the towns of Ridgefield and Wilton. But, while Connecticut may not possess the physical grandeur of our nation's largest parks, it is home to a rich national heritage that must be made accessible to every American. Located in Hartford's Sheldon-Charter Oak neighborhood, Coltsville grew around Samuel Colt's firearms factory, a landmark red brick building with a blue onion dome, during the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. Colt made Hartford the center of precision manufacturing. While Americans may associate the name Sam Colt with firearms, the Colt legacy goes far beyond. Colt was a key figure of the Industrial Revolution, contributing to the development of waterproof ammunition, underwater mines, and the telegraph. He was also the first American manufacturer to open a plant overseas. Colt set the standard for a nation that fast became known for its technological innovations and industrial productivity. It is also a little-known fact that after Colt's death in 1862, his widow, Elizabeth Hart Jarvis Colt, successfully managed Colt Industries for 42 years and presided over the company during its most prosperous years in a period when men dominated the industrial world. Today, the Colt armory remains a beacon in the Hartford skyline, and Coltsville still boasts grand Victorian homes, including Armsmear, the home of Sam and Elizabeth Colt. Other nearby attractions include old mill housing, the Church of the Good Shepherd, and the Colt Memorial. A national park at Coltsville would be the main venue on a tour of Hartford that could include sites such as the houses of Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe and the riverfront. It would also be a prime destination for anyone taking an extended tour of historic and scenic New England. A national park at Coltsville would include more than 200 acres and be comprised of both public and private space. The centerpiece would be a museum within the armory celebrating Sam Colt and the growth of American industry. The museum could hold the vast collection of Colt firearms that currently rests in the Museum of Connecticut History as well as other machinery and memorabilia from the Industrial Revolution. Private property which is currently located within the proposed boundaries of the park, such as artists' studios and condominiums, could remain private. In fact, a museum and visitors' center in the Colt armory itself would take up only part of the building, the rest of which could be left open for private development. The armory already houses a business that manufactures replica Colt firearms, which would only enhance the proposed museum. In my capacity as Connecticut's senior Senator, I have fought hard alongside my colleagues in the State's Congressional delegation to help realize the goal of including this testament to America's industrial and manufacturing prowess within the National Park System. In 2003, we were successful in passing legislation that required the National Park Service to conduct a study assessing the feasibility of designating Coltsville as a national park. On July 22, 2008, Coltsville reached another critical milestone in this effort when it was designated as a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior. Unfortunately, Coltsville has not been immune from the devastating effects of the global financial crisis that began later that year. While the Park Service's report, which was finally released last November, found that Coltsville is nationally significant and suitable for inclusion in the Park System, its determination of feasibility largely hinged on the ability of a private developer to manage the site in conjunction with the Park Service. Given the challenges currently facing our Nation's economy, Coltsville has run into some difficulties with this requirement. As a result, the Park Service was unable to conclude that Coltsville met the feasibility standards for inclusion in the Park System. That is why the legislation I introduced today with Senator Lieberman is so timely and important. The Coltsville National Historic Park Act authorizes the establishment of a national park in Coltsville when the feasibility issues outlined in the Park Service's November 2009 study, namely those surrounding private management of the site, are resolved. Our bill also sets standards for administration of the park, and creates a local advisory commission to develop and implement an overarching management plan for the park. This legislative approach is supported by a variety of State and local stakeholders, and in my view, provides us with a great opportunity to jump-start efforts to bring Coltsville into compliance with Park Service feasibility standards. I firmly believe that one of our most important obligations as Senators is to ensure that our Nation's vast array of natural treasures and historical landmarks are managed responsibly and preserved for the benefit of future generations. I urge my colleagues to join me in extending these protections to the Coltsville Historic District.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time of the Democratic side has expired, is that correct?

Mr. DODD. I don't have a Republican colleague to ask unanimous consent to speak for a couple of minutes. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Let me first thank my friend from Iowa for his tremendous work on so many issues but also his deep interest in this subject matter. Obviously, the subject of exotic instruments--derivatives and the like--is a critical issue for all of the country but particularly in the farm State of Iowa where he has played a considerable role. All of us have a higher degree of interest in one subject matter or the other, but I am grateful to him for his longstanding interest. His is not an interest that emerged with the problems that spiked 18 months ago, but go back 8 years. In fact, he has written legislation and held hearings in his former capacity as chairman of the Agriculture Committee, so he knows the subject well. I appreciate his kind comments about the effort of the Banking Committee and the effort of Blanche Lincoln, our colleague from Arkansas, and the Agriculture Committee she now chairs and where she has been working on a very important piece of our efforts here. There are only a few minutes left before this vote will occur again. As are most people, I am somewhat mystified. I have heard my colleagues over the last day or so raise issues, concerns they have with the bill. It is no great shock that would be the case. That is normally what happens with a bill of this size and obviously this complexity, covering as much of an area as we do across the economic spectrum of our country. I am somewhat mystified. I understand having objections to parts of the bill and wanting to be heard and wanting to have an opportunity to change the bill, either add to it or subtract from it; that is how we normally engage in the legislative process, but I can't very well help on that front if I am not allowed to get to the bill. This morning, the major newspapers of the country of course reported about the hearings yesterday here in Washington. I don't need to say much more about it. Again, the headlines: Looking into mortgage deals and the like have reached a certain crescendo. Most people are probably aware of those things. There was another headline, however, that wasn't at the top of the newspaper but underneath it. In this case, the local paper here in Washington had the headline ``Greek debt downgraded to junk.'' It says, ``European crisis deepens. Dow falls 2 percent on global sell-off.'' The reason I mention that here is that obviously the Goldman Sachs story was the one that got the attention, but there are problems emerging around the world that affect us as well. Our legislation doesn't write international rules, but the United States has led, historically, in financial services. If we are unable to get a bill passed to change the rules, give us a greater sense of fairness and transparency and protection, then we are missing an opportunity to correct what over the last number of years helped create some of the problems we are now facing and then to lead globally so that other nations will harmonize their rules with ours so that the problems that exist in a Shanghai or a Greece can't affect us here. We have a lot of work to do. I expect that if we get on this bill, we are going to be working for weeks engaging in several amendments and ideas to try to strengthen this bill--make it better, if you will. I am one of the authors of the bill. I don't claim this is a perfect piece of legislation. I have never seen one of those in my 30 years here. Normally, you bring out a bill and do the best you can. Obviously, others have different points of view. It would be presumptuous of Senator Shelby and me to suggest that we can come to some great agreement here and tell everybody else that, whether you like it or not, this is the deal. That is not what we get elected to do here. I have colleagues on my side who are sympathetic to what I have tried to do, but they want to change this bill. There is one amendment by my colleague from Vermont, and I think it has 33 cosponsors, two-thirds of whom are on that side of the aisle and a third are over on this side. They ought to have the right to offer an amendment to change this bill, which is what they want to do. I am fully prepared as a manager of this product to allow that amendment process to go forward, engage in that debate. But I cannot get there if you won't even allow me to bring up the bill. So the incongruity of complaining about the product and simultaneously saying: I am not going to let you vote on it, I don't know how you explain that to people in this country. At the end of the day, if you want to vote against the bill, do so. If you want to vote for or against amendments, do it. I am not suggesting that anything I am offering at this juncture would preclude you from that conclusion, but you cannot get to that conclusion unless we have the product in front of us. All we have had is a series of speeches over 3 days, denying us the necessary votes in order to move effectively. In effect, a filibuster is ongoing here. The only way to break that is by getting 60 votes that will allow us to move to the product. Fifty-seven of us have said: Let's get there. I have said this before, and I will say it again. At this juncture, this ought not to be a partisan issue. It may get partisan over some of the ideas. I am fully aware that there are a number of my colleagues here who believe we ought to get to this debate. We ought to get there sooner rather than later. That is not to suggest they agree with the product by taking that position. In fact, I suspect they don't agree with at least some parts of this product. I think they understand the importance of getting to a point where we can try to change this in some way. I will conclude. I make that appeal once more. We have been through this twice already. I hate coming and getting into a partisan debate about this. We should not do this. It doesn't reflect well on this institution on a matter of this import not to allow this to go forward. I yield the floor, and I yield back all time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Let me begin by thanking the majority leader for his work. I thank the minority leader as well. This has been a bit acrimonious over the last 10 days or so as we tried to get to the floor with this bill. Of course I thank Richard Shelby. He and I, as he points out, have been working together over the last about 37 months during my stewardship of the Banking Committee that I inherited in January of 2007. I noted the other day there are some 42 measures we brought out of our committee and 37 of them have become the law of the land. This is a good result. We will now be on this bill, which the American people want us to be on. This is an important issue. As I pointed out this morning, we had the headlines, the hearings here yesterday involving mortgage deals and the other headlines about Greece and its debt. Its bonds were sinking, causing economic problems in Europe and potentially here. These problems are huge. As Senator Shelby has said and I have said over and over, this is a complex area of law we are talking about and it has to be gotten right. We have had very good conversations on a number of issues, but on this over many weeks, going back, obviously, and clearly we both share, as everyone does in this Chamber, our determination that we never again have institutions that become too big to fail where there is that implicit guarantee that the Federal Government will bail them out. I am satisfied that our bill does that already, but I appreciate that there are others who would like to see it tighter, who think we can do more to make it better and more workable. I am anxious to hear them. I know our colleague from California, Barbara Boxer, has some ideas on this as well that she has raised and I mentioned those with my friend from Alabama. He has raised issues with me that I like as well, and he can help us get there. As he rightly points out, we have not sealed anything but we have had great conversations, as two people of good will can have, that I think will allow us to get there. We are going to have a very busy couple of weeks coming up now. There are a lot of Members who have very strong feelings about this bill. My job--our job--will be to see to it people have a chance to offer their amendments, to debate them, to go through that process. I may sound pretty old-fashioned in this regard. I pointed out last night, I first got involved in this Chamber as a young person sitting here in the same outfits as these young people in their blue suits, as a page, watching Lyndon Johnson sitting in that chair where you are, Mr. President, and watching Mike Mansfield in that chair over here and Everett Dirkson in that chair. I remember sitting there and listening to the debates on civil rights in the early 1960s, when this Chamber, in difficult moments, worked together to achieve great results for our country. I have great reverence for this institution and I want to see it work as our Founders intended, where you have a great, important debate--and this is one--that we work together as American citizens chosen by our respective States to represent them in this great hall. That is what I intend to do as the manager of this bill, to make sure that each and every one of my colleagues--whether they sit on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle--are all in this Chamber together to try to improve the quality of life for the people who have been so badly hurt, homes lost, jobs that have evaporated, retirement accounts that disappeared for people. They want to see us work together to get a job done to make a difference for our country and I firmly believe we can do that. I will do my very best, I say to my friend from Alabama, I say to the minority leader, as I said to the majority leader, to act with fairness, to work together to try to resolve matters so we can have a good outcome on this bill. Obviously we cannot predict that. I know there are some who want to make this a great fight--that this is a great, great issue, maybe, for the day or the week you do it--who wins, who loses. That is a great story. But this is not an athletic contest we are involved in. It is a decision to try to put our country on a far more sound and secure footing than it is today. I look forward to the opportunity to work, as I have, with Senator Shelby. We are good friends. I admire him immensely. He was chairman of this committee before I was. He understands the job of being a chairman. I am determined to get this job right. I encourage our colleagues who have ideas and amendments to come forward and share them with us. We are going to set up shop over the weekend to make sure we are there. So we have ideas to consider, accept, maybe modify, make it work right. If that spirit comes forward we can do a good job here and we can leave this Chamber at the end of this Congress, knowing we confronted a serious problem and stepped up to the best of our ability to try to solve it for the people we seek to represent. Again, I thank the majority leader and the staff and others for their work. I thank Senator Shelby in his work. This conversation will continue. We have a lot of work to do. It has been very worthwhile and very productive over these last number of weeks and we intend to keep it in that form. I thank the minority leader as well and the Republican Conference. I know it must have been probably a healthy, good, vibrant conversation for the last hour and a half in there. But for those who question whether we can do this, I want this institution to get back again to the idea of listening to each other, debating the issues, taking our votes and putting together the best product we can. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will take a few minutes, if I can, recognize myself for 10 minutes, if I may, and ask the Presiding Officer to notify me when that time has expired.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I have great affection for my friend from Nebraska and I appreciate his comments about the bill. He wants to fix the bill. That is a noble goal. And the way to fix the bill, of course, is to begin debating the bill. So I am delighted to hear he would want to fix the bill. The problem I have is I cannot seem to get enough people on the other side to get us to the point where we might give them an opportunity to do exactly what they claim they want to do.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield, just for a second.

Mr. DODD. Kansas. Excuse me. I am sorry.

Mr. DODD. I apologize to my colleague.

Mr. DODD. But in basketball, you do very well, so it is OK.

Mr. DODD. Kansas, not Nebraska.

Mr. DODD. I thank my friend. Anyway, my point is, we want to get to the bill. And whether it is my Senator friend from Kansas or Nebraska, we want to get to the bill, if we can. That is all this is about now. I am going to talk about the bill a bit here in the brief moments I have before we actually get to the vote this afternoon on this matter. The American public is sitting there in sort of stunned disbelief. Here we all acknowledge this huge problem that needs to be addressed for the 8.5 million people who have lost their job, the 7 million who have lost their homes, their retirement income. We know from all of the statistics what this financial crisis has caused. Over the last year and a half, we have been busy trying to come up with the answers on how to solve this problem in the future. Here we are, with about 14 weeks left to go before the close of this Congress, with a bill on the floor of the Senate that we put together over many weeks and months--on a bipartisan basis, I might add. Here it is, Madam President. Now we are being told, despite the fact that 58 of us believe we ought to at least begin the debate--I am not asking anyone to vote for the bill. I am not asking you to vote for an amendment on the bill. All I am asking you is, Can we begin discussing this bill here? It is the job of this body to do so. So I am delighted to receive all the lectures I have received from people from about whether they like the bill or do not like the bill or what they want to add to it or subtract from it, and that is all very interesting conversation. But the fact is, until we actually move to the bill--which will be the matter once again before us this afternoon--all that talk is nothing but talk. If you have an idea on what you want to change in this bill, tell me about it. But, more importantly, let's debate it, discuss it, and then vote on whether to add it to this piece of legislation, or to take anything out you wish to take out as well. But I cannot even begin that process if, in fact, you continue to object to us getting to a debate. So that is what this is all about. I guess it does not pay to get your hopes up in this town, but I was still disappointed yesterday when we ended up coming up short with the votes necessary to proceed to the bill. To be honest, I am still mystified by the reaction of our colleagues. Yes, we have heard all the rhetoric from the minority leadership. We have seen the thundering horde of Wall Street lobbyists descending on this community, having been paid millions of dollars to do everything they can to stop this, including the motion to even proceed to debating the bill. They had a victory yesterday. Congratulations to the Wall Street lobbyists. You had a great day yesterday. The American people do not even have a chance to hear a bill discussed that might avoid the kind of catastrophe that has befallen them over this past year and a half. And, yes, we are all familiar with political considerations that seem as inevitable as the sunrise in this community. But still, I cannot bring myself to believe that every single member of the minority caucus wants to stand with the large Wall Street financial institutions that are the major objectors to this bill going forward. This morning, as Goldman Sachs executives were testifying--including this afternoon--before a Senate committee, we all got another chance to understand why they feel so deeply wronged by this legislation. As Frank Rich said in the New York Times this weekend--and I quote him-- [S]omething is fundamentally amiss in a financial culture that thrives on ``products'' that create nothing and produce nothing except new ways to make bigger bets and stack the deck in favor of the house. Our prosperity in the country was built on the hard work of generations of Americans. It was grown in the cornfields of Nebraska and Kansas, engineered in the laboratories of Massachusetts, forged in the foundries of Chicago, and manufactured, if I may say so, in textile plants such as in my home State of Connecticut. It is deeply ingrained in the American ethos that, in this land of great opportunity, you build wealth by creating something: an idea, a product, a service. This economic crisis was not caused by the creators, the producers, the small businesses, and the working men and women who abide by that guiding principle. It was caused by some on Wall Street who wanted to get rich without contributing a thing, by executives who simply come up with ways to circulate money around in a large circle, taking a piece for themselves every time that circle spins. Operating in the shadows of our economic structures, in the places where regulators were not equipped to do their job, firms such as Goldman Sachs found ways to game the financial system, reaping unheard of profits and rewarding their executives with huge bonuses. Understand exactly what these bankers were doing. They were not just trying to predict the future; they were betting on the failure of the mortgage market, a failure they themselves were in a position to cause. Earlier this month, National Public Radio and the nonprofit journalistic organization ProPublica reported on another firm, a hedge fund named Magnetar. This hedge fund, according to the report, saw the housing market begin to decline in the year 2005, bought up enormous amounts of doomed bonds composed of bad mortgages--thus, keeping the market artificially inflated--and then made huge bets on the failure of the very bonds they had bought, now knowing how worthless they were. Thanks to this scheme, the housing bubble grew bigger and collapsed harder. Magnetar walked away with billions of dollars in profits. Other institutions saw an opportunity to run the same scheme. The American people ended up paying the price, of course, as we all painfully are aware. I am the chairman of the Banking Committee. I believe in the vibrant financial sector of our Nation. Small businesses need capital and credit. There are many honest people on Wall Street who, I believe, have helped others to build wealth in our country. So the problem is not that these executives got rich without contributing to America. The problem is that these executives got rich betting against America. They did it in secret where no one could see what they were doing, let alone stop them, until it was too late. They took outrageous risks with money that did not belong to them because they could, in their view. By the time anyone realized what was going on, they had managed to destroy much of the prosperity Americans had built over the course of generations. Maybe I am naive, but I do not believe any Senator wants to be on their side in this debate. And do you know what. I have seen firsthand that there are Republicans who deeply want to get to this bill and get it done. That is why the legislation we want to bring to the floor reflects broad bipartisan agreement. This bill was not written by this Senator alone or a handful of Democrats on the committee. This bill was written in large part with the cooperation of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans. The bill creates an early warning system so we can see and stop the next wave of dangerous financial products and practices before it threatens the economic stability of our Nation. It brings derivatives out of the shadows and into the sunlight so that Wall Street is held accountable for its actions. And finally, it puts a cop on the consumer protection beat so Americans can make smart decisions based on full information when they are planning for their financial futures and those of their families. To listen to the minority leader, the main point of contention, over the last week or so, the reason he has given for his caucus to try and kill this bill as a bloc, is a disagreement over the provisions of our bill that end too-big-to-fail bailouts. But I have to tell you, I do not believe that is the case. No fair reading of this bill allows you to claim with a straight face that it perpetuates taxpayer bailouts. It is not true. I have debunked that idea before on this floor, and I will do it again. The morning after the minority leader made that claim, McClatchy Newspapers wrote: McConnell-- Speaking of the minority leader-- had accused Dodd of drafting partisan legislation, even though the Banking Committee chairman has worked for roughly half a year with key Senate Republicans and incorporated many of their ideas into his bill. McConnell also said the bill continues controversial bank bailouts, but it doesn't. If you do not believe the press reports, here is what our friend, the head of the FDIC, Sheila Bair, had to say. She, as I said, is the head of that organization, the Federal Deposit Insurance Organization-- former legal counsel to the minority leader Bob Dole, a Republican in good standing, I might add, as well. She shuts down, by the way, failed banks for a living. She is a Republican. She said: The status quo is bailouts. That's what we have now. If you don't do anything, you are going to keep having bailouts. Further, talking about our bill, she said: It makes [bailouts] impossible, and it should. Sheila Bair says: We worked really hard to squeeze bailout language out of this bill. The construct is you can't bail out an individual institution--you just can't do it. Madam President, I will speak a little bit more. I know my other colleagues will want to be heard. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, if I can.

Mr. DODD. How in the world the minority leader can come up with that argument does not make any sense at all. He quoted, of course, from the infamous Frank Luntz memo. The memo, of course, by Frank Luntz was written before the bill was written. Frank Luntz's political memo said the following: The single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout. So he provided political recommendations and strategies even before this bill was written. The memo, of course, confirms that because of the date of it. So no matter what he wrote, that was going to be their political argument here. So the minority leader blindly followed the political memo here: Make that argument. Whether it is true is irrelevant, just say it often enough. And the old adage goes: If you repeat it often enough, people will begin to believe it, despite what the facts are. So again, that is the language of others. But let me, if I can--because sometimes talking about it is not enough--let me quote from sections of the bill. Section 204 of the bill says: (1) Creditors and shareholders will bear the losses in the financial company; (2) Management responsible for the condition of the financial company will not be retained. Let me translate: You get fired. (3) The Corporation and other appropriate agencies will take all steps necessary and appropriate to assure that all parties, including management and third parties, having responsibility for the condition of the financial company bear losses consistent with their responsibility, including actions for damages, restitution, and recoupment of compensation and other gains not compatible with such responsibility. Section 206 of the bill: In taking action against this title, the (FDIC) shall determine that such action is necessary for the purposes of the financial stability of the United States, and not for the purposes of preserving the covered financial company; ensure that the shareholders of covered financial company do not receive payment until after all other claims and the Fund are fully paid; ensure that unsecured creditors bear losses in accordance with the priority of claim provisions in section 210; ensure that management responsible for the failed condition of the covered financial company is removed-- Again, fired, if you didn't understand those words-- and not take an equity interest in or become a shareholder of any covered financial company or any covered subsidiary. Lastly: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Corporation, as receiver for a covered financial company, shall succeed by operation of law to the rights, titles, powers, and privileges described in subparagraph (A), and shall terminate all rights and claims that the stockholders and creditors of the covered financial company may have against the assets of the covered financial company or the Corporation arising out of their status as stockholders or creditors, except for the right to payment, resolution, or other satisfaction of their claims as permitted under this section. The Corporation shall ensure that shareholders and unsecured creditors bear losses consistent with the priority of claims provisions under this section. We seem to agree on the problem, and we seem to agree on how to solve it. So, again, I quote from the legislation. Let's get to this bill. We have written the provisions that stop too big to fail forever. There are other very important provisions in this bill that deserve consideration. Again, I am not asking anyone to vote for the bill at this juncture or to vote for the amendments that come up. For the life of me, I don't know how we explain to anyone in this country, in light of what we have been through, that we can't even begin the debate and the discussion. By the way, no two Senators are going to write this bill. There are 100 of us who serve here, and every single Member of this body has a right to offer amendments and be heard. As chairman of the committee, I will insist upon that. Every Member who has an idea and has an amendment will be heard. But, please, let's get to it. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am told there are others who want to be heard, so I would at this juncture note the absence of a quorum.