Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the distinguished majority leader and my colleagues. This has been a long ordeal. I know many of the conversations I have had over the last several days have been wondering when, if ever, we might come to a conclusion of what has been a lengthy process over the last 2 weeks now since this matter emerged. Prior to the Thanksgiving recess, the majority leader and others invited the automobile industry to present plans by December 2 to the Congress on how they might restructure their industry in a way that would allow us to step forward and try to preserve them and allow them to exist for a few more weeks while a broader plan could be devised that would allow them to possibly survive. As my colleagues may know, over the last several weeks we have had a number of hearings on the matter. The Presiding Officer at this point is a member of my committee, along with others who have been very diligent in sitting through long hearings, on an average of 5 or 6 hours apiece, to listen to all of the various ideas. As the Republican leader pointed out, it is a very complex subject matter to be asking this institution, in a matter of days, to try to understand with all of the ramifications of it. Given the precarious nature of it, I think we all appreciate at this juncture that we are looking at least one, maybe two, of the three automobile manufacturers that have existed for almost a century in our country--at a time of great economic peril, when the confidence and optimism in our country is at risk--we run the risk over these days of watching this industry disappear. The blow to the American conscience and confidence and capability is beyond economic terms, if that occurs. I pray this evening that will not happen. No one can say with absolute certainty it will. But we have been warned. We have been cautioned by those whose jobs it is to analyze this industry who have told us that could happen. Tonight we will go home for the holiday recesses, but for the literally hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs depend upon this industry, this will not be a joyous season, wondering whether their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, their children's futures are at risk because we were incapable of coming up with an answer to provide a period of time here to allow intelligent, solid, good, hard-working people to put together a plan to save the American automobile industry. It is disheartening to me, to put it mildly, that we were unable to come to that agreement. Let me say very candidly, Bob Corker is someone I have come to appreciate immensely. He is a member of my committee. We have worked very well together over this last year on many complicated issues, and I appreciate immensely his effort, as he did again this evening, to try to come to a conclusion where we could at least agree on something to move forward. There were three major issues my friend from Tennessee brought to me. I will not go into great detail in this limited time. I will wait until tomorrow, if time permits, to go into a longer discussion. Of the three issues, we agreed on two almost immediately. On the third, involving the parity with compensation of the domestic automobile industry and those of the foreign competitors doing business here, we could not come to closure. The issue simply came down to this. There was no debate, by the way, from the United Auto Workers or anyone else that we ought to achieve parity in those wages or benefits. The question was the timing of it. We are in a deep recession. People are being laid off. The Bank of America announced today 35,000 people will be laid off. Industry after industry is dropping its employees. The idea that you are going to have new hires replace the active employees in a time such as this is difficult, to put it mildly. So the notion somehow that within days or weeks after March 31 of this year that this would mandate--mandate parity between those wages of domestic companies and foreign companies was the stumbling block. The President of the United States, the other body, Democrats and Republicans as well as the autoworkers, the heads of these companies, came together and for 8 days we negotiated an agreement. It was painful. It is not perfect by a long shot. But it allowed us to get to next year to begin to work on this in a way that might make it possible for this industry to survive. Tonight, regretfully, despite the efforts of the White House, people here, people in the other body obviously, workers as well as managers, we have stumbled this evening, unable to make this closure on this issue to allow us to go forward. I am deeply saddened, but more than saddened I am worried this evening of what we are doing with an iconic industry. None of us here was going to write a check without conditionality. This bill I have drafted along with others is some 36 pages long and filled with conditions, establishing a czar--chosen by this President of the United States, not the coming one--to oversee this and say you must meet these obligations if you are going to survive. His determination will determine whether the industry can go forward. If the czar were to say you have not complied, bankruptcy would entail, chapter 11 and, candidly, chapter 7. It would be nothing more than a liquidation of this industry. But we ought to try to avoid that. I thought most of us felt that was a bad outcome. I know my friend from Tennessee believes that, as I do. The outcome of that will cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars, by the way, and that is very well where we may end up this evening. I regret it deeply. I am saddened by it, worried about it, that in the midst of deep and troubling times we are now going to add to that substantially by walking away from an issue of whether we could agree that parity between these wages and benefits could be achieved without slamming it down in such a way as to make it difficult for us to achieve the result. Out of the three issues, we agreed on two and three-quarters but were unable to come to closure on this one which, frankly, in my view, was not an economic issue but a political one, because we are not demanding this of dealers, of suppliers, of anyone else. The only group we have asked this of is the workforce. No one else in this bill is required on a date certain to meet any other obligations, only this one. Yet we fully understand economically how hard that could be, to demand that kind of accountability and not trust a czar or a leader working with the industry and others to reach that agreement. To the majority leader I say thank you, and to your staff, the Banking Committee staff, my friend Bob Corker, the Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, to the White House, which has been tremendously helpful in these last few days on trying to put this together without all of us agreeing. Yet, despite all of that, this evening we will not get cloture. This will fail. We will go home. I am afraid our country is going to be in deeper trouble because of this issue. I regret that deeply. I thank the majority leader. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank you. I want to begin by thanking the staff director of the Banking Committee, Shawn Maher. He is the father of a young 11-year-old boy, and I don't think he has probably seen Aidan much over the last number of months, let alone the last week or so, because he has dedicated himself to the work of this Chamber, this body. So I begin by thanking Shawn Maher. I also thank Aaron Klein, Amy Friend, Dean Shahinian, Neal Orringer, and Deborah Katz; from Senator Reid's staff, Mark Wetjen; from Senator Durbin's staff, Brad McConnell; from Legislative Counsel, Laura Ayoud, who does a remarkable job for all of us. There are many others, but these are the ones who principally did the work night after night, day after day, nonstop through the weekends, to try to package here a proposal that would win our support. And I apologize to them. We were not able to do it. I feel badly myself that maybe their Members did not probably work as hard as maybe we should have after all the effort they put in. But I want them to know, as we come into this holiday season, there are many people who in this country owe a great debt of gratitude to these people who worked so tirelessly on their behalf but never get the credit and the recognition they deserve. So this evening I thank them immensely for what they have done, and we will be back another day to fight again, and my hope is to make a difference for people in our country. But we all owe them a debt of gratitude, and I am particularly grateful to each and every one of them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Orrin Hatch the Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act of 2008. The bill we are introducing would help to integrate individuals with intellectual disabilities into their communities, improve their quality of life and promote the extraordinary gifts of these individuals. I am proud to be introducing this bill with my good friend Senator Hatch. He has been a long time leader in this cause, and most recently worked with Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, myself and others to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008. We, as a society, have an obligation to do all we can to include individuals with disabilities and help them to reach their full potentials. Yet, as one study on teen attitudes notes: ``Legal mandates cannot, however, mandate acceptance by peers, neighbors, fellow employees, employers or any of the other groups of individuals who directly impact the lives of people with disabilities.'' People with intellectual disabilities have indeed gained many rights that have improved their lives; however, negative stereotypes abound. Social isolation, unfortunately, is the norm for people with intellectual disabilities. Early intervention, effective education, and appropriate support go a long way to helping someone with intellectual disabilities achieve at the best of his or her abilities and lead a meaningful life in the community. I would like to tell you about the accomplishments of Best Buddies, a remarkable non-profit organization that is dedicated to helping people with intellectual disabilities develop relationships that will provide the kind of support that will help them reach their potential. Founded in 1989, Best Buddies is the only national social and recreational program in the United States for people with intellectual disabilities. Best Buddies works to enhance the lives of people with intellectual disabilities by providing opportunities for friendship and integrated employment. Through more than 1,000 volunteer-run chapters at middle schools, high schools and colleges, students with and without intellectual disabilities are paired up in a one-to-one mentoring friendship. Best Buddies also facilitates an Internet pen pal program, an adult friendship program, and a supported employment program. Approximately 7 million people in the United States have an intellectual disability; every one of these individuals would benefit from the kind of relationships that the Best Buddies programs help to establish. The resulting friendships are mutually beneficial, increasing the self-esteem, confidence, and abilities of people both with and without intellectual disabilities. The legislation we are introducing today allows the Secretary of Education to award grants to promote the expansion of the Best Buddies programs and to increase participation in and public awareness about these programs. The bill authorizes $10 million for fiscal year 2009 and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 2013. If passed, this legislation would allow Best Buddies to expand their work and offer programs in every state in America, helping to create a more inclusive society with a direct and positive impact on more than 1.2 million citizens. I thank my colleague Senator Hatch for working with me on this legislation. And I applaud Representatives Hoyer and Blunt, who have introduced a similar measure in the House. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation that will make a positive--and needed--difference in the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities and in the lives of those with whom they develop relationships. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Let me say as well, I don't have a prepared statement to make, either, but I want to tell my friend from Oregon how much I have enjoyed my work with him over the years on a number of very important issues dealing with the issue that the Senator can speak of not only with eloquence but with a great deal of passion, and that is the issue of mental illness. We were able to pass, in the waning days of our session, of course, the mental health parity bill. How important that was. Pete Domenici, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and others worked on it, but Gordon Smith was invaluable in that discussion. I enjoyed immensely my work with him during his two terms in the Senate. I will say to my friend, the good Lord is not through with you yet. There are a lot of things you can do for our country. You have done a lot already. So I hope you come back often and see us and know you have friends who care about you and cherish you very much. Although there is an aisle here that separates us politically, the aisle doesn't exist when it comes to respect and admiration. In those terms, I am your seatmate in terms of my respect for you. I thank you for all you have done. John Sununu

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Orrin Hatch the Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act of 2008. The bill we are introducing would help to integrate individuals with intellectual disabilities into their communities, improve their quality of life and promote the extraordinary gifts of these individuals. I am proud to be introducing this bill with my good friend Senator Hatch. He has been a long time leader in this cause, and most recently worked with Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, myself and others to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008. We, as a society, have an obligation to do all we can to include individuals with disabilities and help them to reach their full potentials. Yet, as one study on teen attitudes notes: ``Legal mandates cannot, however, mandate acceptance by peers, neighbors, fellow employees, employers or any of the other groups of individuals who directly impact the lives of people with disabilities.'' People with intellectual disabilities have indeed gained many rights that have improved their lives; however, negative stereotypes abound. Social isolation, unfortunately, is the norm for people with intellectual disabilities. Early intervention, effective education, and appropriate support go a long way to helping someone with intellectual disabilities achieve at the best of his or her abilities and lead a meaningful life in the community. I would like to tell you about the accomplishments of Best Buddies, a remarkable non-profit organization that is dedicated to helping people with intellectual disabilities develop relationships that will provide the kind of support that will help them reach their potential. Founded in 1989, Best Buddies is the only national social and recreational program in the United States for people with intellectual disabilities. Best Buddies works to enhance the lives of people with intellectual disabilities by providing opportunities for friendship and integrated employment. Through more than 1,000 volunteer-run chapters at middle schools, high schools and colleges, students with and without intellectual disabilities are paired up in a one-to-one mentoring friendship. Best Buddies also facilitates an Internet pen pal program, an adult friendship program, and a supported employment program. Approximately 7 million people in the United States have an intellectual disability; every one of these individuals would benefit from the kind of relationships that the Best Buddies programs help to establish. The resulting friendships are mutually beneficial, increasing the self-esteem, confidence, and abilities of people both with and without intellectual disabilities. The legislation we are introducing today allows the Secretary of Education to award grants to promote the expansion of the Best Buddies programs and to increase participation in and public awareness about these programs. The bill authorizes $10 million for fiscal year 2009 and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 2013. If passed, this legislation would allow Best Buddies to expand their work and offer programs in every state in America, helping to create a more inclusive society with a direct and positive impact on more than 1.2 million citizens. I thank my colleague Senator Hatch for working with me on this legislation. And I applaud Representatives Hoyer and Blunt, who have introduced a similar measure in the House. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation that will make a positive--and needed--difference in the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities and in the lives of those with whom they develop relationships. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the intent in section 105(c) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, ``Regulatory Modernization Report,'' of the important requirements for analysis of regulation of the over-the-counter swaps market and for recommendations regarding the enhancement of the clearing and settlement of over-the-counter swaps. The OTC swaps market is enormous, estimated to be $600 trillion. This market is primarily made up of interest rate swaps and Credit default swaps. Corporations, banks, insurance companies, GSEs, pension funds, State and local governments and endowments all participate in the OTC swaps market. The OTC swaps market is a ``bilateral contract'' market which does not involve an exchange or a clearinghouse. It is directly between two parties, which results in each party bearing ``counter party credit risk.'' In other words, if one of the two parties goes bankrupt or fails to pay, the other party can suffer a complete loss on the transaction. Since the OTC swaps market has impacts on the financial system, it is appropriate and timely to look at it carefully. Some of the largest OTC swaps market dealers and market participants have been merged in federally arranged transactions into stronger market participants, taken into Government conservatorships or receiverships or provided a line of credit directly by the Federal Government. These actions were taken, in part, because of concerns by Federal authorities about either the losses in their OTC swaps books and or the potential cascading effect on OTC swaps market if such an entity failed. The Treasury Report should look at the OTC swaps market generally and the current and potential options for improvements in clearing contracts, such as through a Federally licensed clearinghouse, with a view to whether it would materially lower credit risk. The Report should consider issues such as the processing of confirmations, margining, collateral management, market access, transparency in pricing, and safety and soundness concerns. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the many staff members who have labored almost around the clock over the past several weeks to help craft this legislation. From the Banking Committee Amy Friend, Dean Shahinian, Jonathan Miller, Aaron Klein, Julie Chon, Jenn Fogel-Bublick, Lynsey Graham, Brian Filipowich, Drew Colbert. From Senator Gregg's Committee and personal staff Denzel McGuire, Jim Hearn, Allison Parent, Christopher Gahan. From the Finance Committee Russ Sullivan, Cathy Koch, Mark Prater. From Senator Conrad's Budget Committee and Personal Staff Mary Naylor, Tom Mahr, Lisa Konwinski, Matt Salomon, John Righter. From the Judiciary Committee Bruce Cohen, Kristine Lucius. From the Majority Leader's office Bruce King, Mark Wetjen, Gary Myrick, Randy Devalk. From the Republican Leader's office Rohit Kumar, Derek Kan. From the Office of Legislative Counsel Laura Ayoud, Rob Grant, Didem Nisanci with Senator Reid, David Stoopler with Senator Schumer. Last but not least, our extraordinary Floor Staff, led by Lula Davis and Dave Chiappa.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with great sadness and a heavy heart to remember a young man and a great American. Army 1LT Thomas Brown, a native of Shelton, CT, was killed in action in Iraq a few days ago--the 41st citizen of my State to lose his life in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. He was 26 years of age. We honor the sacrifice of all our men and women who give their lives serving this country. But it is never easy to lose someone so young-- especially someone for whom life so clearly had much more in store. As a teenager, Lieutenant Brown attended Notre Dame Catholic High School in Fairport, where it has been said he was all but inseparable from his twin brother, Timothy. He was an honor student and an athlete. He would graduate from George Mason University in 2004, and like so many young people, he was eager to serve his country--to give something back. He attended Ranger school, Airborne school and officer candidate school. This young man would go on to serve in the Army's 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Armored Division. There, I understand, Lieutenant Brown earned great respect and admiration from his fellow soldiers. Lieutenant Brown was known among his comrades as an officer who led by example, not by order, and was immensely proud to serve his country in the U.S. Army. He was also known for his passionate love of the Boston Red Sox, and for his truly generous spirit. In recognition of his heroic service and sacrifice, Thomas Brown was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart. One of the saddest facts in this young soldier's passing is that he was due to take leave and return home in 3 short weeks to visit his friends, family and girlfriend. He wanted nothing more than the chance to visit home. Timothy Brown said recently of his brother: ``He wanted to make a difference.'' Let the record show that 1LT Thomas J. Brown, in his 26 short years on this Earth, did make a difference--and that we are forever grateful for the remarkable contributions he made to the country he did so love.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized for 6 minutes, the Senator from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes, and then my colleague and friend from New York for 6 minutes.

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

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

Mr. DODD. I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois wishes to speak. I ask for 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend from California.

Mr. DODD. I wish comment on certain parts of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Section 132 reauthorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission to suspend Financial Accounting Standard 157 if it ``is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors.'' That is a very high standard. I do not expect or encourage the Commission to take action in this regard. Vital to the health of U.S. capital markets is financial information that is reliable. Accounting rules should produce financial data that faithfully depicts economic reality and is neutral, not favoring either the supplier or user of capital, either the buyer or seller of securities. The formulation of accounting standards is best left to the accounting experts. Congress should not be in the business of setting accounting standards. Furthermore, it is critically important that we respect the independence of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, so that they can observe a fair and open process and arrive at the most appropriate accounting standards. Congress should not chill or override that independence and does not do so in this legislation. With respect to mark to market, I understand concerns that have been raised. However, many experts object to the suggestion of suspending it. For example, the Council of Institutional Investors, the Center for Audit Quality, and the CFA Institute have said they ``are united in opposing any suspension of `mark to market' or `fair value' accounting.'' They stated: [Suspending fair value accounting during these challenging economic times would deprive investors of critical financial information when it is needed most. Fair value accounting with robust disclosures provides more accurate, timely, and comparable information to investors than amounts that would be reported under other alternative accounting approaches. Investors have a right to know the current value of an investment, even if the investment is falling short of past or future expectations.] Section 133 directs the Commission to conduct a study on mark-to- market accounting. The study is to be completed within 3 months, which will necessarily limit its scope and depth. Within these limits, I will be particularly interested in the findings on the impact of such standards on the quality of financial information available to investors and on the fairness of the standard setting process. Section 118, ``Funding,'' states that the purposes for which securities may be issued include actions authorized by this act, including the payment of administrative expenses. This would include such reasonable expenses as are incurred in the preparation of reports, such as the study mandated by section 133. Section 3 states that the term, ``financial institution,'' ``means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association'' or other specific types of institutions. The latitude of the definition is intended to include the parent holding companies of one of the identified types of institutions that are established and regulated under the laws of the jurisdictions set forth in the definition. Thus, for example, if a wholly owned securities subsidiary of a public-traded financial holding company sells assets to the Treasury Department, it would be subject pursuant to section 113 to providing a warrant to the Secretary to receive stock in such holding company. With respect to section 119, I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Leahy on the savings clause. Section 101 of the legislation gives broad authority for the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with other agencies, to purchase and to make and fund commitments to purchase troubled assets from eligible financial institutions on terms and conditions that he determines. This legislation does not limit the Secretary to specific actions, such as direct purchases or reverse auctions but could include other actions, such as a more direct recapitalization of the financial system or other alternatives that the Secretary deems are in the taxpayers' best interest and that of the Nation's economy. Section 129 requires the Federal Reserve to submit regular written reports to the Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committees whenever it uses its authority under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The periodic updates to the reports are meant to keep the committees informed of the specific details of any loans or the aggregate details concerning programs the Federal Reserve establishes that are covered by this requirement. Section 131 requires the Treasury to reimburse the Exchange Stabilization Fund, ESF, for any losses that result from the temporary guaranty program that they recently established. It is the intent of the Treasury that the temporary guaranty program that they recently established will not last longer than 1 year, and while the final version of the act does not mention this time-frame, it was because the Treasury Department has publicly stated that this temporary program will last no longer than 1 year, which is consistent with the intent of this legislation. Further, the act forbids the Secretary from using the ESF for the establishment of any similar fund in the future. The ESF has never been used for loans or guarantees for domestic purposes, and it is important that the money in the fund continue to be available for the ESF's stated purpose. Section 136 provides a temporary increase in the coverage limit for nonretirement accounts in insured depository institutions. It is the intention of the legislation that this increase be temporary and this increase is not a statement of any intent for changes in the permanent deposit insurance level. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Treasury Department be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 588, S. 602.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. As I mentioned earlier, of course, I'd like to express my gratitude to Senator Biden for his remarkable work on this effort, along with Senator Lugar. Obviously, this team who has worked so closely together on so many issues, but this one is of extreme importance. Again, I urge my colleagues to be supportive of it. We have a chance to get this done. There are those who will argue for delaying and waiting later, but I think the moment is here. Again, this is an important message to send. As I mentioned earlier, I am not sure my colleagues are aware of this, but Prime Minister Singh showed remarkable courage as the Prime Minister of that country in forging this agreement. I think our response to it is important--not that we ought to sign on to it for that reason--but it is important, how important this relationship is. Again, I draw the attention of my colleagues to this map behind me and the central role, geographically, this great and mature democracy holds in this part of the world, where in many cases there is something far less than a strong and mature democracy. To have a good, strong relationship with this great country in this century will be of critical importance, I believe, to our safety as a nation and the safety of mankind. So this agreement transcends a bilateral relationship. It goes far deeper than that, reaches far broader than the boundaries of two countries separated by the great distance but allows us, for the first time in some 35 years, to once again grow closer together as two greet democracies. The tension between our countries has been there for these past 35 years. Tonight we will have an opportunity to put that behind us and to build a new relationship. For that reason, this agreement also has great significance and import. The Secretary of State, Washington, October 1, 2008. Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senate. Dear Senator Reid: I am writing to express support for the ``United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act'' (H.R. 7081). I very much appreciate your consideration of this important bill within such an extraordinary timeframe. We would not be asking for such exceptional action if we did not believe it was necessary to complete an initiative on which both the Administration and Congress have worked very hard, and on a thoroughly bipartisan basis, since 2005. The U.S.-India nuclear agreement marks the culmination of a decade-long process. Two successive Administrations have sought to improve U.S.-India relations and adapt American policy to India's emergence on the international stage. For the United States, passage of this legislation will clear the way to deepen our strategic relationship with India, open significant opportunities for American firms, help meet India's surging energy requirements in an environmentally friendly manner, and bring India into the global nuclear nonproliferation mainstream. I encourage you to pass H.R. 7081 without amendment. The current bill advances the U.S.-India relationship while enhancing nonproliferation efforts worldwide. Amendments would unnecessarily jeopardize the careful progress we have achieved with India at a time when I believe it is important for us to seize the significant momentum we have created in the U.S.-India relationship. I understand that some Senators have questions about the impact of an India nuclear test on this initiative. We believe the Indian government intends to uphold the continuation of the nuclear testing moratorium it affirmed to the United States in 2005 and reiterated to the broader international community as recently as September 5, 2008. Let me reassure you that an Indian test, as I have testified publicly, would result in most serious consequences. Existing in U.S. law would require an automatic cut-off of cooperation, as well as a number of other sanctions, if India were to test. After 60 continuous session days, the President could waive the termination of cooperation if he determined that the cut-off would be ``seriously prejudicial'' to nonproliferation objectives or ``otherwise jeopardize the common defense and security.'' We believe existing law strikes the proper balance in responding to a nuclear test, and it is consistent with the approach adopted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group when it adopted the exception for India in early September. Please allow me also to reiterate what I told Congress on April 5, 2006, when this same question arose: ``We've been very clear with the Indians . . . should India test, as it has agreed not to do, or should India in any way violate the IAEA safeguard[s] agreements to which it would be adhering, the deal, from our point of view, would at that point be off.'' Encouraging India's sustained commitment to its moratorium on nuclear testing will be important to the strategic partnership the United States now seeks to build with India. Congress and the Administration have carefully addressed testing concerns in the Hyde Act, the U.S.-India 123 Agreement, and the testimony of Administration officials. We have an unprecedented and historic opportunity before us to help shape the 21st century for the better. With this legislation in its current form, the Senate can help ensure that the United States and India complete the journey we began together three years ago. You can also help ensure that U.S. industry--just like its international counterparts--is able to engage with India in civil nuclear trade. Sincerely, Condoleezza Rice.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I inquire of my colleague from North Dakota, is it the intent of the Senator to offer an amendment at this time or is it later this morning, or what is my colleague and friend's plan?

Mr. DODD. OK.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am standing in today, my colleagues should be aware, for Senator Biden, who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. As most of the world is aware, he is otherwise occupied. As the ranking Democrat next to him, I have been asked to assume the responsibility of bringing this matter before the Senate. Senator Biden has spent a great deal of time on this issue, along with his friend and colleague, the former chairman, Senator Lugar, as have other Members as well. Today we will talk about this issue, the importance of it, the action taken by the House of Representatives under the leadership of Howard Berman, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of that body. I have a letter from the Secretary of State, as well as other supporting information, that leads us to the conclusion that this bill ought to be passed, and passed, I hope, overwhelmingly by this body because of the message it would send not only to the people and the Government of India but others as well about the direction we intend to take in the 21st century about this matter. I will share some opening comments, and I will turn to my colleague, Senator Lugar, for any comments he has, and then Senator Dorgan and Senator Bingaman--at least two people I know who have amendments they wish to have offered. I know they have comments and thoughts they have to share on this subject matter as well. In addition to Senator Lugar and Senator Biden on the committee, there are other Members as well who expressed a strong interest in the subject matter--not necessarily an agreement with this proposal but nonetheless should be recognized for their diligence in paying attention to the issue. Senator Feingold of Wisconsin and Senator Barbara Boxer of California have demonstrated a real interest and concern about this issue. I want to speak for a few minutes about Representative Henry Hyde. I was elected with him in 1974 to the House of Representatives. He is no longer with us, but nonetheless he made a remarkable contribution as a Republican Member of the House of Representatives, not the least of which was this one, on the Hyde amendment, which will be discussed, I presume, at some length today as we talk about this bill, H.R. 7081, the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Agreement. I rise to urge passage of this bill, approving the United States- India peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement. On this past Saturday, the House of Representatives passed this bill by a margin of 298 to 116, a resounding vote in support for this agreement. This agreement with India is as important as it is historic. This bill enables the United States and India to chart a new course in relations between our two great democracies. There are compelling geopolitical reasons to move forward with this relationship. India has become a major actor in the world. Why don't we put up this map. One of the things I thought I would do is put up a map. I know everyone knows exactly where these countries are located, but I think sometimes it can be helpful to remind people of the tremendous importance of India's location in Asia, sharing borders with many countries--certainly China and Pakistan and in close proximity with Afghanistan, a very fragile part of the world. If you look at this map--I will leave it up for a good part of the day--you will appreciate, aside from the agreement itself, the strategic importance of this relation for the United States. India has become a major actor in the world, and it increasingly sees itself in concert with other global powers, rather than in opposition to them. Indian Prime Minister Singh, who visited Washington just last week, has devoted energy and political courage in forging this agreement, and in seeking approval for it in India. Put simply, he has placed himself and his political party on the line. In India, the political symbolism of the agreement is extremely important. It addresses the most divisive and long-standing issue between our two countries dating back to 1974. Most important, the agreement addresses India as an equal--a point that looms large in India, where there are strong memories of a colonial past and of tensions with the United States during the Cold War. Some of the debate in India focused on whether the agreement with the United States would hamper India's nuclear weapons program. But much of the give-and-take was really about a more basic question--whether it was really time for India to work cooperatively with Western countries. Reaching an accord on nuclear status has been wrenching for India, despite the favorable terms that some say India obtained. This agreement is indicative of a new era in Indian foreign policy-- an era in which India will see all the world's powers as potential partners in efforts to address its own needs and the needs of others. I believe that this new era will bring increased stability and progress to South Asia. I see the bill before us as approving far more than just a nuclear agreement. Among other things, it will set the stage for a stronger U.S.-India relationship, which will be of critical importance to our country in the 21st century. The Committee on Foreign Relations held an in-depth hearing on the U.S.-India agreement last month. The committee, along with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, worked closely with the administration to address technical concerns expressed about the agreement. This extraordinary consultation resulted in a bill that will improve U.S. implementation of the accord and assure that nuclear non-proliferation remains at the core of U.S. foreign policy. Our committee approved a bill identical to the House-passed bill by a vote of 19-to-2. I commend chairman Howard Berman in the House and Senator Lugar for his leadership as well. This agreement is not a partisan issue. President Clinton launched the initiative, and President Bush pushed it to fruition. It had strong support on both sides of the aisle in 2006, when we voted on the Henry J. Hyde Act, establishing the underlying principles and requirements of this accord. Indeed, 85 members of the Senate supported the Hyde Act, and only 12 voted against it. I believe the resulting agreement has strong support today. I mentioned Henry Hyde arrived in Congress in 1975, along with some 74 of us elected in that fall of 1974. I had a wonderful relationship with Henry Hyde. We served together in the House and then during our respective tenure in that body, and then in this body. As I mentioned earlier, Henry Hyde was a remarkable Member of Congress and accomplished many things. He was controversial in some ways but a person of deep conviction, deep personal convictions, and he brought that conviction to everything he engaged in as a matter of public policy. We probably would not be in as strong a position today to talk about this agreement had it not been for the Hyde Act. So I would be remiss this morning in discussing this if we didn't pay tribute to Henry Hyde and his contribution to this very issue. I want the record to reflect my appreciation for the work this man did on behalf of all of us by drafting and supporting and insisting upon the adopting of the Hyde Act. Mr. President, throughout our work on this agreement we have sought to address concerns expressed in the United States as well as in India. Some nuclear nonproliferation experts have voiced a fear that it would lead India--and then India's neighbors--to increase the production of nuclear weapons. Some experts have warned that giving India the right of peaceful nuclear commerce, despite its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, could undermine the world's willingness to abide by that vital treaty and to enforce compliance with it. We have been consistently vigilant to such risks, and the Hyde Act and this bill give us the tools to remain so in the future. The process that led to the U.S.-India agreement was undertaken with an eye to achieving progress on nonproliferation issues. Pursuant to a declaration issued in July 2005 by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh, it is important to note the following: India has improved its export control law and regulations; India has moved to adhere to the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime; India has affirmed that it will not transfer equipment or technology for uranium enrichment or spent fuel reprocessing to any country that does not already have a full-scale, functioning capability; India has reaffirmed, both to the United States and to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing; India has initialed, and intends to sign, a safeguards agreement with the IAEA; India has begun to negotiate an Additional Protocol to that safeguards agreement; and India will bring under IAEA safeguards over a dozen existing or planned nuclear facilities that were not previously subject to safeguards. The bill before the Senate provides additional measures that guide the implementation of the agreement, and they are worthy of note. This agreement reaffirms that our approval of the agreement is based on U.S. interpretations of its terms. In other words, it reaffirms that President Bush's assurances about fuel supplies are a political commitment--and are not legally binding. It requires the President to certify that approving this agreement is consistent with our obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty not to assist or encourage India to produce nuclear weapons. Before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can issue any licenses under this agreement, India's safeguards agreement with the IAEA must first enter into force. In addition, India must file a declaration of civilian nuclear facilities under the safeguards agreement that is not ``materially inconsistent'' with the separation plan that India issued in 2006. We know that there will be some changes, because the 2006 plan envisioned safeguards beginning that year--rather than 2 years later. But this guards against a declaration that flatly contradicts India's promises. The bill also requires prompt notification of the Foreign Relations Committee if India should diverge from its separation plan in implementing its safeguards agreement. The bill establishes a procedure for congressional review--and possible rejection--of any ``subsequent arrangement'' under the agreement that would allow India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel that was derived from U.S.-supplied reactor fuel or produced with U.S.- supplied equipment. Article 6 of the India agreement anticipates such a subsequent arrangement if India builds a new reprocessing facility dedicated to its civilian nuclear power sector. Congress should have a special role in this, because spent fuel reprocessing can produce weapons-grade plutonium. This is an improvement over current law, which allows such arrangements to take effect 15 days after public notice is given in the Federal Register. The bill requires the President to certify that it is U.S. policy to work in the Nuclear Suppliers Group to achieve further restrictions on transfers of enrichment and reprocessing equipment or technology. The bill also directs the President to seek international agreement on procedures to guard against the diversion of heavy water from civilian to military programs. The India agreement has protections for heavy water that the United States may supply, or that is produced with U.S.-supplied equipment. We need to get supplier countries to adopt similar standards. This was the subject of some lengthy conversation at the committee hearing on this very matter, talking about the heavy water issue and what can be produced by that. I left the hearing confident that the administration intends to pursue these matters very aggressively. The bill requires regular reporting on the executive branch progress in its efforts on enrichment and reprocessing limits and protecting against heavy water diversion. That is a lot to consume. I will be happy to make this available to my colleagues to review--staff have worked on this very diligently over the last number of years--to respond to any Member or staff member about any of this. It is somewhat complicated when you get into the issue of heavy water and physics. Nonetheless, there are matters I want the Members to be confident about when they consider their vote on this very important bill. So, again, I wish to thank the administration, and I will ask unanimous consent, if I may--this is a letter which we received from the State Department, from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, expressing the strong support of the administration for this agreement. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in his absence, why don't we wait. My plan would be to have you do that and make your statements, and I will respond to them at the appropriate time. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have a consent agreement that would combine the two amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the order with respect to H.R. 7081 be modified to provide that the Dorgan and Bingaman amendments be combined into one amendment; that all debate time specified previously remain available and the amendment be subject to the 60-vote threshold, as provided under the previous agreement.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that action on the appointment of Rainier Spencer made yesterday be corrected to reflect that is an appointment made on behalf of the majority leader and that correction be printed in the Record.