Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. First, let me thank my two colleagues from North Dakota and New Mexico for combining their amendments in a way that I think makes sense. My colleague can correct me if I am wrong, the House was similar to both. There were somewhat different approaches, but I think they offer some clarity as to their concerns which, let me say at the outset, these are concerns I believe all of us share. There is not a single one of us, that I am aware of, in this body who doesn't have the same worries and concerns that my colleague from North Dakota expressed, as well as my friend and colleague from New Mexico. I will not debate the number, whether it was 25,000 or 30,000 or 20,000-- clearly, the problem with having a proliferation of nuclear devices around is a concern to all of us. Obviously, each and every one of us bears a responsibility to do everything we can to minimize the threat such weapons pose. I don't know anyone more vigilant in that effort than my colleague from Indiana, along with my former colleague, Senator Nunn. The Nunn- Lugar proposals, which regrettably were not pursued as aggressively as I think they should have been by the Bush administration, were to convince the former Soviet Union and other nations to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons in particular. That exists, and there are those of us who would like to see it pursued more aggressively. There are countless examples over the years of Members who have sought various means by which we could reduce the threat. I would argue, and I will, that this bill is very much in that tradition. This is not a deviation from that effort. It is very much in that same tradition others have pursued, to create and formulate the means by which we can reduce those threats. This bill is comprehensive in many ways. It is certainly not perfect by anyone's stretch of imagination. Contrary to the suggestion that there has been one hearing on this, as if somehow this has been thrown together in the last couple weeks, there have been five major hearings with multiple panels conducted by Senators Biden and Lugar. The other body has conducted at least that many hearings. It all began about 4 years ago, this process, not something just a week or two ago that has led to this. You heard Senator Lugar say that he alone submitted 174 questions to the State Department and other agencies, demanding their responses to those questions and publicized them on his Web site. So the very questions many of us have, have been addressed, maybe not to the satisfaction of everyone but certainly pursuing the very issues. The reason I mentioned that is if, in fact, this amendment were adopted, of course, there would be no means by which you could resolve these matters with the other body. They have already adopted a bill without this language in it. Therefore, this would presumably pass without consideration. The fact is, that come next year the administration--because the time runs out on this--would be submitting the agreement without any of the agreements we have included in this bill, many of which do exactly what my colleagues from New Mexico and North Dakota are seeking to achieve. So the irony of ironies would be that while I respect immensely their intent, what they seek, in fact, it would be counterproductive of the very goal they are trying to achieve and that is to strip away everything we have achieved under the leadership of Senators Lugar and Biden, along with Howard Berman's leadership in the other body, to include the kind of understandings and requirements this bill mandated. Is this a perfect bill? Absolutely not. But if we allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good, we are going to find ourselves, I think, in a far more serious situation than the one Senator Dorgan and Senator Bingaman has described to you. I would never make the argument to my colleagues that if you adopt this amendment--I don't say hate; my wife advises that I don't use the word ``hate'' in front of the children--I deplore arguments that suggest that if you adopt this, it is a killer amendment, and we would have to go back and do further work. I think that is an insulting argument. In fact, if an amendment is a good amendment and ought to be adopted, we ought not to shy away from our responsibility. As a matter of fact, I will argue, the amendment is unnecessary; existing law does exactly what my colleagues are asking us to do today. But if we adopt them, we run the risk of something coming back a lot worse than what Senator Biden, Senator Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee, over extensive hearings, along with the work of the other body, have accomplished and achieved. As my colleagues listen to this debate, I hope they will take that under consideration. I point out, the United States-India agreement will be resubmitted in January if it is not approved now. The next President would not have to seek any special law, which is what we have, to speed up the process. Rather, he could wait us out until the Atomic Energy Act forces us to take a vote on a clean resolution of approval of the agreement, without any of the amendments we have adopted and worked on over the years. Let me mention an argument Senator Lugar raised; I didn't. I regret not having mentioned it because I think it is a compelling argument as well. One of the arguments people need to understand is India does not have an unlimited supply of materials by which to create nuclear weapons. They will be faced, without outside sources of supply, to make a choice between nuclear weapons or the commercial powerplants. I do not intend to speak as a great expert on Indian politics or the public mood in India, but nations, particularly ones that live in the neighborhood--I don't have the map up here any longer--where India resides, what choice would they make if they could only make one? Is it going to be energy or security? That is a difficult choice. While all of us want to see the energy choices made, a nation surrounded by nations that have nuclear capabilities, not exactly close to the democracy India is, by the way, may very well decide to have different alternatives. If you are sitting in India's Parliament, you are a member of their Congress and you have one choice to make, security or energy, security or energy--how would we vote? How would we vote confronted by that choice? That is a choice with which India may well be confronted without additional sources of energy here or supplies that would allow them to promote the more commercial use of this power. I don't necessarily want to put India in that position to make that choice because I think I know what choice they would make. I suspect it is the same choice we would make. We bear an obligation to the people of this country to keep them secure. I suspect the Indian parliamentarians feel likewise. When confronted by that choice, my view is they would choose to make security the choice, the very thing my colleagues argued against would, in fact, be driving them to that conclusion. Obviously, the energy debate is a critical one. Again, no one has been more of an advocate of green technologies than our colleague from New Mexico, one of the stalwarts in this debate for many years--not just recently, where it has become popular to argue for alternative energy resources. But if we take away this alternative, India is growing--1.3 billion people. It has 300 million people living at middle-class or upper middle-class standards. They have a billion people living in abject poverty in India. They are seeking ways, of course, to bring many of those people out of poverty and improve the quality of their lives. India understands that coal-fired electrical power plants are a liability, but India cannot afford to slow the growth of energy production at the same time its population is growing and trying to deal with the economic circumstances of its people. India says we would like to build more commercial powerplants. It seems to me, for those of us who want to reduce the carbon footprint, the carbon emitters with India being a major supplier of carbon emissions it is in our interests to encourage them to move in a different direction. If we do not have some sort of arrangement or understanding on how to achieve that while simultaneously moving them away from that choice I mentioned a moment ago, we end up potentially where they have more weapons, doing little or nothing about energy production. It is a lose-lose proposition. We end up with India with nuclear weapons, and we end up with a nation that continues to use coal-fired plants, of course, endangering us further when it comes to the issue of global warming and the like. That is a further reason, I would argue, we ought seriously to understand the import of these amendments and appreciate the alternative presented by the bill before us. I mentioned earlier, in fact, the very concerns raised by my two colleagues are covered by existing law. It is not as if there is some vacuum that exists, that there would be no repercussions should India decide to pursue and test nuclear weapons. Let me share with my colleagues. Again, I invite Members or their staffs to come over and be briefed by staff who spent literally their adult lives, their professional careers working on these bills. The suggestion that this was thrown together somehow in a quick hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee in a sense fails to understand the work done by our collective staffs on these matters going back years. In fact, previous Members of this body--no one cared more about this issue than John Glenn of Ohio. He was an advocate on this issue long before many were. I am going to share in a minute some of the law that bears his name and is still the law of the land when it comes to these issues, the Glenn amendment, and how we deal with the issue of countries that would, in a sense, go into the use of nuclear weapons. This amendment would bar any and all nuclear exports for all time, without any exception or waiver, if India detonates a nuclear device. Section 106 sets a different standard for India than we have for any other nonnuclear weapons state, which is what it is under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and U.S. law. There is no need, I think. I think it would be very harmful to single India out in such a manner. There are other nations in a similar situation. I don't hear amendments being offered to suggest they all ought to be treated the same way. I suspect you would run into a buzzsaw if you did so. We are picking out the one great democracy in south Asia, with whom we have had a very testy relationship for 35 years, which is critical for dealing with the fragile issues that section of the world poses, and we are going to say: They and no one else gets that kind of treatment. You can imagine the reaction we might get from a nation that is now reaching out to us for the first time in approaching half a century to get us back on a far different track than the one we are on. India would clearly see this provision as an effort to put in place special penalties against that nation, if it were ever to respond. Frankly, the proposed new section, as I said earlier, is a section I think poses some serious issues. I have commented before, I have put the language in of the administration. I think everyone mentioned earlier, and I will quote from the Secretary of State, she said: We have been very clear with the Indians. Should India test, as it has agreed not to do so, or should India in any way violate the IAEA safeguards agreements to which it would be adhering, the deal from our point of view would be at that point off. Under Secretary of State Bill Burns, before our committee, repeated that quote to us. What is more, as I said, the amendment is unnecessary. Several provisions of existing law already apply to India. The Glenn amendment sanctions under the Arms Export Control Act cut off a wide array of foreign aid, defense exports, bank credits and dual-use items. There is no waiver. No waiver under the Glenn amendment. That was modified some years later, but there would be no waiver. The Glenn amendment is tougher in many ways than what we talking about here, we can argue, in that it doesn't provide any kind of relief. Congress enacted a waiver in 1999, somewhat of a waiver, after India and Pakistan tested in the 1990s, but that waiver authority terminates for either country that tests again. So under the modified Glenn amendment, there is no waiver authority. Under Glenn, the role of the United States and our relationship with India is clear. Section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act already prohibits exports to a nonnuclear weapon State if it detonates a nuclear device. That one is subject to waiver by the President. India is still a nonnuclear weapon state by definition, and therefore would be included under this. That law is on the books, very similar to what is being advocated in the amendment posed by our two colleagues. The President could only use the waiver under section 129, I would add, if he finds that ceasing exports would be ``seriously prejudicial'' to the achievement of the U.S. nonproliferation objectives or would otherwise ``jeopardize the common defense and security of the country.'' That is a high standard, I might add, for the waiver authority. Even if the President makes that determination, cooperation cannot proceed until 60 days of continuous session has passed after that determination has been submitted to Congress, further making that provision almost impossible to apply that waiver standard. So there are two sections, one under the Atomic Energy Act, one under the Glenn amendment, that virtually do what our two colleagues talk about with their amendment. The bill before us would amend the Atomic Energy Act to ensure, by the way, that the Senate can take advantage of expedited procedures--limits on debate and amendment--to pass a joint resolution to overturn such a Presidential waiver. Even if you got to that point, we have now put a further safeguard in against it, making it virtually impossible to waive the authority under section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act. So the bill already improves the law relating to what could happen with a so-called nonnuclear weapons state. We are using the language here, but this applies to states that we all, to be honest, know have nuclear weapons. There are several nations we all know about in that category, but they are called nonnuclear weapons states. And yet, here the language is very strong. Again, I think these sections are important to note. The combination of the two amendments does cover the ground on all of this. I point out that Senator Bingaman's part of this amendment, this new section 107, is not necessary either. U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty already compel the United States to assure that its nuclear exports do not help nonnuclear weapons states to produce weapons. That obligation bars helping not only India but any nonnuclear weapons state. The Atomic Energy Act and the Hyde Act already provide tools to address the concern Senator Bingaman has raised. Let's look at the specific provision, if you will, under the proposed section 107. It would require a certification in the event of a nuclear detonation by India that no United States material, equipment, or technology contributed to the detonation. And what happens if the President makes that certification? The amendment does not say what happens. What happens if the President does not make the certification, or says it does not know whether any U.S. material, equipment, or technology was involved? This is a certification that may well be impossible to make under the law as drafted in this amendment. So even with the intent to do something about it, how can you make it? How are you going to determine whether, in fact, materials have been used, or is it just the assumption that if one occurred, it would be, which may be an entirely false assumption when it comes to that country? How will we ever know for sure that no U.S. technology was diverted? In any case, it is the certification that carries no consequences. The certification is not needed. Again section 104 of the Hyde act already requires the President to keep Congress fully and currently informed of any violation by India of its nonproliferation commitments and of this agreement. Any contributions by U.S. exports to an India weapons program under the United States-India agreement would certainly be a violation of India's commitments and of the agreement, and so would need to be reported to us, and would very likely be reported to us long before any detonation, I might add. Section 2 of the proposed act requires a report from the President after an Indian test describing those United States export controls that could be used to minimize any potential contribution that United States nuclear exports to third countries might make to an Indian nuclear weapons program. The Hyde act and the Atomic Energy Act already address this issue. And let me quote to my colleagues again. I apologize for citing in detail these things, but you need to know this, because statements being made here on the floor about this, I say respectfully, are not accurate, about what existing laws require and mandate and demand in these areas. Section 104(d)(5) of the Hyde act requires the President of the United States: shall ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to maintain accountability with respect to nuclear materials, equipment and technology . . . reexported to India so as to ensure . . . United States' compliance with [obligations under] article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Section 104(g)(2) of the Hyde Act explicitly requires detailed reporting on any United States authorizations for the reexport to India of nuclear materials and equipment. The Atomic Energy Act further requires that the United States not engage in civil nuclear cooperation with any country without an agreement for nuclear cooperation and that every such agreement must contain a guarantee by the other country that it will not transfer any nuclear material or facility to a third country without the prior approval of the United States. Section 127 of that act makes it explicit that for any U.S. export of source or special nuclear material, nuclear facilities, or sensitive nuclear technology, that material, facility, or technology may not be retransferred to a third party without the United States's prior consent. The transfer cannot go forward unless the third party agrees to abide by all of the agreements of section 127. That section also requires that the source and special nuclear material, nuclear facilities, and sensitive nuclear technology being exported must be under IAEA safeguards, and may not be used in or for research and development on a nuclear explosive device. This assures us that any such report does not contribute to India's weapons program. The truth is that if India were to conduct another nuclear test or reexport by third countries, United States-origin nuclear material, equipment, or technology would be the least likely way for India to evade a cut-off of cooperation. If any third country were to provide United States-origin nuclear material, or equipment, or material device from the United States- origin material or equipment for India without the United States's consent, the United States would have the right to cease nuclear cooperation with that country and to demand the return of material and/ or equipment that has been provided under that country's nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States. So third countries are highly unlikely, given the implications under the existing law, to reexport without our permission, or run the risk, obviously, of facing all of the admonitions that the previously existing law requires. A much more serious concern would be the risk that other countries would export their own nuclear material or equipment, not our material but their own nuclear equipment and material technology, to India after we had cut off exports. That concern is not addressed at all by the Dorgan and Bingaman amendment. But the bill before us does address that concern. Their amendment leaves that out entirely, which is actually a far more dangerous way that this may happen. So under the bill before us, by reiterating a provision under the Hyde Act that if India should test again: It is the policy of the United States to seek to prevent a transfer to India of nuclear equipment, of materials or technology from other participating governments in the Nuclear Suppliers Group or from any other source. This bill already lays down a marker regarding the real concern if India were to test. Again, whether it is reexport or direct shipments, we are in a position, I think, to respond aggressively. I point out, you defeat this bill, we are back to the agreement and a lot of this, other than what I have mentioned in existing law, does not apply. So, again, I say to my friends and colleagues who offered the amendment, this is not a debate about whether some people care about nuclear weapons and others do not. The question is, are we being smart and intelligent about moving a major democracy that lives in a dangerous part of the world into a direction that will make it far more cooperative with us in doing exactly what the underlying amendment seeks to do, that is, to move away from weapons to commercial use, to dealing with the carbon emissions that are occurring here, to provide that kind of new relationship with India that I think is absolutely critical for our safety and security in the 21st century. Walk away from this, drive a wedge between India and the United States in that part of the world, then I think you are going to have exactly the kind of problem our two colleagues have suggested. It gets closer to what they fear most. I believe what we have offered our colleagues today drives us further away from that outcome, which is what all of us ought to be trying to achieve. That is the reason I reject these amendments, and urge my colleagues to do so when they occur on a vote later today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I say to the Senator, he can do that. I will propound a consent request, Mr. President, that the Senator be allowed to conclude in 5 minutes. Is that appropriate?

Mr. DODD. Five minutes; and my colleague would like 15 minutes. So I ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent that the Senator from Missouri be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes and the Senator from Iowa for an additional 20 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Pryor amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; 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, momentarily we will be introducing a bill, but my colleague from New York is here and wants to be heard. I just wanted to take 30 seconds, if I could. We have wrapped up the debate on the U.S.-India nuclear accord and there will be no more discussion I know of about that at this point. I will maybe insert some materials in the Record but I did want to thank Senator Biden's staff and others. There is a list which I will put in the Record, but Brian McKeon, Ed Levine, Anthony Wier, Fulton Armstrong, and, from Senator Lugar's staff, Kenny Myers and Tom Moore, just did a great job on this. I want my colleagues to reflect the effort of staff who have worked for years on this. I appreciate immensely their efforts. There will be a vote later this evening on that matter. I yield the floor to my colleagues whom I know want to address the financial crisis issue or some other points. As soon as I have the amended version of the bill, I will send it to the desk for their consideration.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I am going to offer a unanimous-consent request that covers that. I will have my colleague look at it as well, so we may need some modification.

Mr. DODD. Let me object to this particular request of my colleague, and I will get back to it in a minute. I don't want to get to a situation where there are limits without some consideration to make sure there is a balance to it.

Mr. DODD. Then the Senator from Montana.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New York. She was eloquent and hit right on the exact theme. I think this is a sad moment in many ways but a moment we have to confront. As she so aptly describes, it is our job now not just to deal with this crisis but to put our country on a better footing. So I thank her for her message and her words today.

Mr. DODD. Before yielding to Senator Baucus, I announce that I have a number of Senators who I ask consent be recognized for 5 minutes: Senators Baucus, Mikulski, Brown, Cantwell, Harkin, Conrad, Casey, Bill Nelson, Reed, Durbin, Obama, Schumer, Boxer, Menendez, and Kerry.

Mr. DODD. Let's make it 12 minutes for my colleague from Montana.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, once again, I thank my colleague from Maryland. We have served together a long time here over the years, and her passion, her eloquence are consistent in that same voice I heard several decades ago as a new Member of the House of Representatives. She has never retreated from those values. Once again, I heard them again today. She is absolutely right, in my view, and I will speak at some length why this legislation is necessary, but also, as importantly, that the steps be taken so we never see America face another day such as this one again. So I thank my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, as to that last unanimous consent agreement, let me translate that into English. Sometimes these unanimous consent agreements get a little confusing. What we are going to try to do over the remaining 3\1/2\ hours or so is to divide the time equally. The minority side has agreed to limit their Members to 10 minutes each. I have not made a similar request here, but I will at some point if Members are not understanding of the desire of everyone to be heard--or almost everyone--on this matter. At a point in the next few minutes, I will share some remarks that will explain how this bill has arrived to the point that it has and why I think it is important we support this effort this evening. Again, I am very grateful. I will have some comments to make about Judd Gregg, my colleague from New Hampshire. Certainly, Max Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, has been an incredible ally and supporter over these last 2 weeks trying to fashion something that would give us a sense of confidence about emerging from this economic crisis. But I will reserve some comments in a few minutes about all that. I see my colleague from Tennessee, who I would like the Record to reflect, while he is, I think, the most junior member on the minority side in the Banking Committee, his contribution should never be calibrated by the seat in which he sits in terms of seniority. I want my colleagues to know while Bob Corker has not been a longtime Member of this body, his contribution is that of a very senior Member of this body. It has been invaluable. He is knowledgeable, thoughtful, pragmatic, and made wonderful and comprehensive suggestions to the product we have before us today. I want my colleagues to recognize that. So I thank Senator Corker of Tennessee for being a very good Senator in a moment such as this, which is a sad day, as I said earlier, but a day which we must address. So with that, let me yield the floor for Senator Corker to make some comments.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee. Again, I appreciate his tremendous efforts that have brought us to this moment. Amendment No. 5685 I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to describe this amendment to my colleagues at this hour. I wish to talk as well about some of my colleagues who have helped us get to this point. There is a crisis in our country. That has been said so many times now. I hope the impact of that statement is not being lost because of the repetition of it. We need to address it swiftly and forcefully. That is why we are here today. Normally, when you talk about bringing up a bill, there is a certain amount of joy involved in putting something together that you think is proactively going to make a difference. In this case, we are coming together around a proposal and a bill that is in response to a situation that has angered millions of Americans and angers most of us here to be in this situation but also heightens the sense of responsibility that requires us to act. Therefore, we will spend the next few hours sharing with each other, as well as with the American people, why we are in this situation, to some degree, but clearly what our response is to it and our hopes that this proposal will make the difference that many Americans expect. If Americans doubt we are living in perilous times in our Nation's history, they need to look no further than at what is happening in the financial markets over the last few days. Clearly, this is no ordinary time, no normal economic downturn. This is a day unlike other days. This crisis, and the choice it demands, is unlike few we have ever seen before, even those who have served in this Chamber for several decades. This Chamber may not be full, but millions, in time, will hear the words we speak, and millions will feel the vote we cast around 7 p.m. this evening. In the end, once the reputations we stake, for good and ill, have long since gone to dust; once this day has turned from flesh and blood to textbook page for a child who is not yet born; one of two things will be said about us and how we acted on this heavy day. They will say the Senate did what was right, or they will say the Senate washed its hands of this problem and walked away. If this bill could be written as starkly as that, the vote would be unanimous. But bills never are. They are full of jargon and verbiage and compromise, and as necessary as they are, they can crust over and obscure the essence of our choice. We read stories of foolish choices in our history books and from our safe distance, it is so easy to shout: Why didn't they know any better? But up close, in the flesh and blood of the moment, even on a day such as today, making the wrong choice can be supremely easy. Nearly eight decades ago, the men who sat in these chairs--and there were only men in those days--were faced with a crisis not unlike the one we face today. They faced a recession that threatened to turn much worse. They did what was easy. They lashed out at the world and threw up huge barriers to trade. They found someone to blame--not because it was good economics but because it felt good. President Hoover signed the 13 letters of his name with six gold pens and launched a trade war. The world retaliated. Commerce shut down. And passing a bill that felt good drove us deeper and deeper into depression. This week, on both sides of the Capitol, I could imagine how pleasant it would feel to vote no. In that respect, those who stand on the other side of this issue will have a much happier week. What a rush of affirmation they will get as they stick a finger in the eye of the bankers and the tycoons whose greed brought us to this crisis. Believe me, I can sympathize. But after the vote has been cast for pique and for spite, what then? After the rush of righteousness fades, what then? It has been said: ``Let justice be done, though heavens fall.'' It is a noble thought, but it is much easier to say when the heavens are in no danger of falling on you. Who will they fall on? They will fall on the million or more families who can lose their homes. They will fall on the mothers and fathers telling their children that the college loan isn't coming through and struggling to explain why. They will fall on workers laid off all over this country as credit dries up and as businesses fail to make their payrolls and as they send their employees home with pink slips through no fault of their own. We are one Nation, one economy, and one body. We can take a cut at Wall Street, but Wall Street will not feel the worst of the pain--not by a long shot. The blood will not come from them. My colleagues know who will feel the pain, who will be bled the most by this crisis: those whose economic world is made up of credit cards and mortgage payments, not hedge funds and credit default swaps. The men and women and families we represent will feel the pain of a ``no'' vote. The world will feel the pain, too, I might add, men and women and families just like ours who don't speak our language, who are asleep on the other side of the world as I speak these words right now but who are bound to us in a web of commerce more tightly than ever before in world history. They are watching, too, I might add. Today's Washington Post quotes a banker in Germany, a man who did nothing to cause this crisis but who will suffer from it as much as if he did. And his faith in America, even now, even today, ought to inspire each and every one of us in this Chamber. Let me quote him for you: All I can say is that I simply cannot imagine that the Americans will not come up with some sort of a solution. Anything else is outside the realm of my imagination. Outside the realm, Madam President, of his imagination that this Senate of ours will not solve this problem, in conjunction with the work of the other body. He is speaking of a nation of doers, of fixers, of problem-solvers, of people with optimism and confidence in our future. We can be that Nation again. In fact, we must be. Madam President, I love my job here in the Senate. I normally sit in the seat right behind me here, my father's desk. I sit it in every day, have for 28 years. I love that desk, love this Chamber, and today there is not a place I would rather be. I am sure my colleagues, each one of them, have their own stories, 100 of them, of their love of this job and of this place and what it means to be a Senator. But how can we possibly weigh those hundred jobs, if you will, against the 600,000 or more that have been lost in America just this year alone and the million more that could follow if we could save those jobs by giving up our own? How could we not? Who could come to this floor and say with a clean conscience: I will save my job but put hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk all across this great country of ours. I don't believe a single Member of this body, regardless of party, would ever make that trade. They would be willing to give up their job to save that of others. As Edmund Burke said to his constituents centuries ago: The legislator's ``unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from your law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable.'' I am answerable today, as are all of us in this Chamber, and I intend to answer correctly. I intend to answer yes, we ought to do this to get our country back on its feet again. That is the job of a Senator. By now, it is well known how we arrived at this critical moment. Years of what Secretary Paulson himself has called bad lending practices went essentially unchecked by a regulatory system that was not on the job. These bad lending practices have been primarily in the area of mortgage lending. As we all know, culpability for these practices exists in every link of the lending chain, from mortgage brokers to lenders to the investment banks. Certainly there are many borrowers who acted irresponsibly. They should not be excused for the consequences of their actions but neither should those whose culpability was significant and catastrophic in terms of their impact on mortgage lending and on the credit markets. Almost 2 years ago, the Senate Banking Committee held the first congressional hearing of the new Congress on predatory lending. At that hearing, I and others of that committee, Democrats and Republicans, warned of a coming wave of foreclosures that could devastate millions of homeowners and have a devastating impact on our economy. Some, unfortunately, scoffed at those predictions. Well, no one is scoffing anymore. Financial market turmoil is affecting families and businesses all across this country, and the contagion has spread beyond the shores of our own Nation. A paper in my State, the Connecticut Post of Bridgeport, CT, reported that, at Sacred Heart University, Julie Savino, dean of student financial assistance, is fielding calls from parents who never before sought financial aid. Laid off or without medical insurance or unable to secure a home equity line of credit, parents are suddenly on the hunt for alternative means to pay for their children's education. Some students have had to walk away from their educations all together, she points out. Reuters News Service reported that Kansas City cabinetmaker Anthony Gallo had no debt 18 months ago. None. Now he is being forced to borrow just to make payroll. Let me quote Mr. Gallo: My line of credit has been cut to nothing. We are all hurting and wondering what is going to happen. They have got to do something to save the banks. They can't kill our economy. The fact is, the banking and financial system is an essential part of our Nation's economy. A halt in the flow of money threatens not only Wall Street firms--which would not bring us here today--but endangers the way of life for millions of Americans far beyond Lower Manhattan. Right now, banks are afraid and in some cases unable to lend money, money companies need to make payroll, money families need to pay medical bills, money students need to pay for college, money small businesses need to stock their shelves with inventory, money a gas station needs to supply its pumps with gas, and money investors provide to entrepreneurs to start new businesses and create new jobs. We know that money isn't moving. That is what the credit crunch means. Very few Americans have ever heard of something called the LIBOR, which stands for the London interbank offered rate. This is a rate banks charge when they make loans to other banks. It is also the rate that is used to calculate the cost of home loans, student loans, auto loans, and small businesses. Yesterday, LIBOR jumped over 400 percent in just 1 day. In many ways, this is the canary in the coal mine, if you will. It is a sign of the strains that are threatening the essential flow of credit to the people of our country and, indeed, the industrial world. Another canary in the coal mine is the rate on Treasury bills. Several days ago, fearful investors rushed into safe Treasury securities, sending yields on Treasurys into negative territory for the first time in at least half a century. When people see that the money they have placed in banks and money market funds is earning negative interest, they may feel compelled to pull their money out of such financial institutions. This could result in even further erosion of the supply of money in our economy. Our economy is on a precipice--and that is not an exaggeration, that is not hyperbole--and we must do what we can to move it back from that brink. The legislation before us and the amendment I have offered, this comprehensive amendment before the Senate today, represents an effort to do just that. Just 10 days ago, the administration--if I may just remind my colleagues, this is the bill, I hold it in my hands, three pages long-- the administration sent to us a bill that called for $700 billion to go out without any questions asked, without any oversight, any accountability, or any taxpayer protection. Three pages. I might point out, as I said to some, a no-documentation loan for $100,000 to a subprime borrower a few years ago was four pages long. Here is a request for $700 billion that is three pages long. And my colleagues on both sides here said no to that, we are not going to do that. As a result, over these last 2 weeks, we have put together a piece of legislation that gives us much more heightened protection about how this program would work. There are a lot of people who deserve tremendous credit, but I thank my colleagues for rejecting this offer of three pages for $700 billion in return for drafting a comprehensive bill that I believe will provide the kind of security people are looking for with a plan of this magnitude. I refused, along with my colleagues, to provide a blank check on this not just for this administration--I would do it with any administration, and my colleagues did as well. This crisis demanded we bring together Members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, and hammer out a better solution for the American people. Our leader, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, deserves incredible credit for his determination to stick with it and not walk away and demand each and every day, when things began to fall apart, that we stay and work at it. He was joined by the minority leader, Senator McConnell, equally committed, I would point out, to the same efforts, as well as a number of others who played significant roles. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire I have been talking about and spending a lot of time with over these last 2 weeks, working out this particular bill that we brought together, and I thank him for his efforts. Jack Reed of Rhode Island was the principal author of the warrants in this bill, to make sure the American taxpayer comes first. If these instruments turn out to be more profitable and they actually are sold and we make our money back, the people who will get the benefit of that first are the American taxpayers, and Jack Reed demanded that. Pat Leahy looked at the provision of this original proposal which suggested that no court of law, no agency could ever question how this $700 billion was going to be used, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said that passage will not last and struck it and offered new language that provides judicial protection in this bill. I have mentioned Bob Corker already, Senator Corker of Tennessee, who was valuable over the last 2 weeks, and Mel Martinez and Chuck Hagel. My colleague from New York, Chuck Schumer, who is knowledgeable about this subject matter and who represents the State of New York--I can't begin to describe how valuable Chuck Schumer has been in this process. From the very beginning, there hasn't been a meeting that has occurred or a discussion held where he hasn't played an invaluable role in seeing to it that we stayed with it. Dick Durbin, the majority whip, and Bob Bennett of Utah--again, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee historically has played a very important role on so many issues during his tenure here and again was tremendously helpful. Max Baucus, whom I have mentioned--chairman of the Finance Committee--played a critical role as we fashioned this together. My dear friend and colleague, Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, was incredible in his determination that this package be fiscally sound, that we have provisions that would guarantee our debt would be retired as part of the effort here when resources are sold and the profits are gained. So I thank my friend. He is here, in fact, on the floor. My colleague has been a tremendous help in all of this, Madam President. I want to also mention, from the other body, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, my counterpart on the House Financial Services Committee, was, again, tireless over the last couple of weeks in this effort, and Congressman Roy Blunt, Speaker Pelosi, Representative Boehner as well, and Rahm Emanuel. There are so many people, and I want to be careful, but clearly this was a huge effort. I wish in many ways that the American people could have been a witness to these gatherings that went on day after day. I think they would have been proud of their Congress at a time when Congress's reputation is not great. I think they would have been proud to see the effort that was being made, not where people were running to a political corner wearing a Republican or Democratic hat but coming together as Senators and Congressmen, along with those from the Treasury Department, to make a difference. All of these Members of Congress undertook the enormous and in many respects thankless but nevertheless vital task of crafting this proposal which we offer to our colleagues this afternoon--the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This legislation would address, we hope, our Nation's economic emergency in three key ways: economic stabilization, taxpayer protection, and home ownership preservation. This bill gives the Treasury Secretary the authority to respond quickly, forcibly, but responsibly to the current crisis. It authorizes him to buy a total of $700 billion in troubled assets, broken down into three separate tranches, with the final tranche subject to congressional review and approval. Madam President, $700 billion is a staggering amount of money. We all understand and share the anger of the American people that they are being asked to commit that sum. But in a $14 trillion economy, this is the kind of financial firepower that must be brought to bear to contain the financial crisis. Secondly, in consideration of the extraordinary burden this bill potentially places on the taxpayer, we maximize, to the extent possible, protections of the taxpayer. The bill establishes an oversight board to review and shape the policies of the Treasury Department in carrying out this program. Unlike the original Treasury proposal, this bill subjects the actions of the Treasury Secretary to strong judicial review that would prohibit actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful. It places firm limits on executive compensation to help ensure that corporate executives whose companies receive taxpayer benefits do not walk away with golden parachutes and are not otherwise rewarded for wrongdoing. We require taxpayers to receive warrants so that they can benefit when a company benefits from taxpayer assistance. In addition, we require that any profits generated from the sale of these assets purchased with public funds go to reducing our national debt. We provide for extensive reports so that Members of Congress and the public at large will know how every dime of this program is being used. Within 48 hours of any transaction, the Treasury Secretary will have to report the amount, the terms, and the participants associated with that transaction. The General Accounting Office will have immediate and ongoing audit authority and report to Congress every 60 days. A special inspector general will be established to monitor and police the program's activities and its participants. The third priority advanced by this legislation is home ownership. This is not an ancillary objective; it is inherent, in my view, to our efforts to resolve this economic crisis. Chairman Bernanke himself has spoken forcefully on this point. Our economy will recover only when we put an end to the spiral of foreclosures that are pulling down our entire financial system. To that end, the legislation requires that all Federal agencies that own or control mortgages or mortgage-backed securities preserve home ownership. In addition, the legislation expands eligibility for the HOPE for Homeowners program, which allows lenders and borrowers to access Federal mortgage insurance in order to put homeowners on a path to security, not financial ruin. This is not an easy vote. There will be no balloons or bunting or parades for Members at the end of this process, only the knowledge that at one of our Nation's moments of maximum economic peril we acted, not for the benefit of a particular few but for all Americans so that they and those who come after them may enjoy the full blessings of life in this great Nation of ours. We are a nation of optimism and confidence. Americans deserve to have that restored. Our job tonight will give them a chance to do that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I want to recognize the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, for how long would the Senator from Illinois like to be recognized?

Mr. DODD. I am in control of the time. How much time?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Illinois 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have as much time as he would like to have.

Mr. DODD. Yes, under current law and under the provisions in this bill, that authority exists.

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his passion, eloquence, and commitment. He is never shy. This institution could use a little bit more of similar expressions of feelings for constituents. I thank him for that speech. I see my colleague from Alabama. We are going back and forth. At that point after Senator Sessions, Senator Schumer is next in line.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Senator from New York is next.