Floor Statements

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. 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.

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.

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

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?

OK.

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

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.

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.

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?

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. 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.

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.

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.

Then the Senator from Montana.

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.

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.

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

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to H.R. 1424, in addition to the controlled time specified in the order for consideration of the measure, any other available time until 7 p.m. today be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, and that when appropriate Members speak in an alternating fashion--Democrat, Republican--that if two Members of any one party speak sequentially, due to availability, then it be in order for two Members of the other party to speak sequentially, if available; that prior to the vote on passage of H.R. 1424, as amended, if amended, the leaders may use whatever leader time they deem appropriate, and that the remaining provisions of the order with respect to this measure be in effect.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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.

Madam President, the Senator from New York is next.

I will give the Senator an additional minute.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague from New Jersey.

Madam President, I have a unanimous consent that has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that an additional 30 minutes be allocated for debate with respect to H.R. 1424, equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, and that the debate with respect to the House message on H.R. 2095 be delayed accordingly, and that any other provisions remain in effect.

I yield 5 minutes to Senator Nelson of Florida.

Madam President, one quick thought. We are all entitled to our opinions. Pat Moynihan used to say everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts.

As I listened to my friend from Florida, Senator Nelson, talk about the executive compensation section of this bill, I must respond.

As to this legislation, section 111, negotiated by Senator Max Baucus, myself, and others, let me be very clear. When Treasury buys assets directly, the institution shall observe standards limiting incentives allowing clawback and prohibiting golden parachutes. When the Treasury buys assets at auction, an institution that has sold more than $300 million in assets is subject to additional taxes, including a 20-percent excise tax on golden parachute payments triggered by events other than retirement. And also we eliminated the deduction for compensation above $500,000, and we prohibit golden parachutes at other certain institutions--anything but mild. It is the first time ever in the history of the Congress that we are actually going to pass legislation dealing with golden parachutes. More will be done, but this bill does take very concrete, specific actions in that regard.

Again, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

I yield 5 minutes to Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

I yield 1 additional minute.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for an eloquent statement and a strong one.

Madam President, I yield to my distinguished friend and colleague from California 5 minutes.

If I may inquire of my good friend and colleague who has been very generous, I may ask for a little generosity in terms of time. I am running into a crunch, and I have a couple Members who may wish to speak for a couple minutes. But let me get to that point.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

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

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

I absolutely agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. The scale of this undertaking is vast, and the exposure to the taxpayer must be well managed. Therefore, I urge the Secretary to look broadly for the best expertise in assisting him in managing this program.

I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee that is what we intend.

M. LEAHY. And the provision we have included in section 119 of the Senate's legislation, to ensure that this review is available, the word ``law,'' as it is used, means any State or Federal law, or common law interpreting such State and Federal laws?

Yes. The Senator from Vermont is correct. My understanding and intent is that this section would allow for review in the event any action by the Treasury Secretary was in violation of any State or Federal statute, or common law interpreting a statute.

Mr. LEAHY: I thank the Senator. It is not our intent to permit the Treasury Secretary to quash or alter any private right of action on the part of shareholders of entities from which the Secretary purchases assets, nor allow the Secretary to confer immunity from suit any participating financial institution.

I would say to the Senator from Vermont that is correct as well.

It is. That is what we intend.

Mr. LEAHY. And by agreeing with the administration's request to automatically stay on appeal injunctions issued against the Treasury Secretary for actions taken under the authority of this legislation, we have assured that existing waivers of sovereign immunity under the Tucker Act, the Contracts Dispute Act, the Little Tucker Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and relevant civil rights laws would apply to the Treasury Department's new responsibilities, just as these laws have applied to the Treasury Department's actions prior to the bailout measure. Is that correct?

I say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that is what we intend with the savings clause.

I do.

I agree with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Yes, for purposes of this act, I agree that financial institution may encompass auto financing companies.

Yes, should the Treasury Secretary, after consulting with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, determine that purchasing auto loans is necessary to promote financial market stability and transmits such determination in writing to the Congress, then the Treasury Secretary could engage in such purchases.

I am keenly aware of these issues as Chairman of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over financial aid to commerce and industry and which wrote the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979.

This is correct. As previously stated, an auto financing company could be included in the definition of financial institution and auto debt could be included in the definition of troubled assets after the appropriate steps are taken.

Yes, I completely agree that this would include holding companies of such companies listed and other companies that the Secretary may determine are eligible for this program.

Yes, it is the intent of the committee and of the Congress that this section intends that the securities of the parent or holding company of such a subsidiary would be used in the warrant. Nothing in this language is intended to exclude holding companies of subsidiaries and warrants should be exercised to the greatest extent possible for the benefit of the taxpayer.

Yes, I agree that this is the case and that it was the original intent of the committee and of the Congress to ensure that warrants are exercised to the greatest extent for the benefit of the taxpayer, to include recovery of losses and administrative expenses along with a premium set by Treasury.

tax credit investments

Mr. President, I want to assure my colleague from Maryland that I read that language as allowing such purchases, if necessary, to maintain liquidity in this particular market. I want to commend him for bringing this important matter to my attention as soon as we received the original Treasury proposal. My staff informed Senator Cardin's staff that Treasury officials believed the proposal they sent to Congress authorized the purchase of such credits, and we concurred.

Mr. President, my colleague from Maryland has made an excellent suggestion for how Treasury ought to maintain liquidity with regard to the LIHTC. I thank him for his concern. The housing crisis in this country affects nearly everyone in some respect, including lower income individuals and families who cannot afford to buy homes and depend on the steady supply of affordable rental housing. My amendment to H.R. 1424 gives Treasury the authority, flexibility, and resources it needs to address this critical issue.

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Hawaii's interpretation of that provision.

I thank the leader for his question and for his leadership in helping guide us through this crisis. He is exactly right. I have been saying throughout this process that foreclosure prevention has been one of the key reasons we need to move forward with the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.

The legislation has a number of key provisions dealing with foreclosure prevention:

First, it requires that the Secretary of the Treasury ``implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners'' in keeping their homes. This means Congress has rejected an ad hoc approach by the Treasury in favor of a programwide system to keep families in homes.

In the case where the Secretary owns whole loans, we expect him to modify those loans to ensure long-term affordability for American families. The legislation outlines that this should be done by a reduction in principal, a reduction in the interest rate, a refinance through the HOPE for Homeowners Program, or any equivalent method that ensures that these hard working Americans are restored to sustainable home ownership.

I want to remind my colleagues that millions of Americans were sold loans that the mortgage brokers and lenders knew or should have known the borrowers could never afford. These ``exploding'' adjustable rate mortgages, ARMs, interest-only loans, and payment-option ARMs were designed to entice borrowers with low initial payments. Yet, after a couple of years, the payments would explode, increasing by 20 percent, 30 percent, or more. This is driving delinquency and foreclosure rates to historically high levels and driving home prices down, creating the economic downturn we are now facing.

Second, all other Federal agencies that own or control mortgages, including the FDIC, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, FHFA, and the Federal Reserve Board, must also implement plans to maximize assistance to homeowners. The FDIC, under the leadership of Chairman Sheila Bair, has already started down this road with the assets it has taken from IndyMac Bank, and we expect the other agencies to work with the FDIC in developing their own programs. The FHFA, which is the conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, now oversees hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, MBS, which they will now be obligated to aggressively modify as a result of this legislation.

Third, one of the serious complications the modern mortgage market has created is the difficulty of doing modifications for loans that have been pooled and securitized into a host of MBS. It is often difficult to get the various investors in the numerous MBS backed by a particular pool of mortgages to all agree to do a modification.

This legislation, however, mandates that the Treasury and the other Federal agencies that own or control MBS must aggressively pursue loan modifications with other investors and must consent to all requests from servicers for reasonable modifications. In fact, it is our hope that the Federal Government will gain control of sufficient percentages of these pools that their ongoing pursuit of modifications and reasonableness in their willingness to accept offers that ensure families can keep their homes will tip the balance and lead to more modifications.

Finally, this bill includes three new provisions for the HOPE for Homeowners that should expand its reach and allow us to help many more homeowners avoid foreclosure and get into affordable, stable, FHA- insured mortgages.

As I have been saying for well over a year, the epicenter of the current financial and economic crisis is the housing crisis and the heart of the housing crisis is the foreclosure crisis. I understand the need to move to stabilize the financial system as a whole--that is why I have devoted countless hours over the past weeks to negotiate this final package.

But I would not support this bill, nor ask my colleagues to do so, if I was not convinced that it adds important new tools to address the core problem--rising delinquencies and foreclosures. Obviously, this bill does not include everything I would want but it is an important step forward.

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. President, I first thank my colleagues for their generous comments. This has been an incredible 2 weeks. It began exactly 2 weeks ago tomorrow night when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury, in words that were as chilling as any I have heard in 28 years here, describing the condition of our economy.

We heard the words ``credit crunch.'' I was educated in high school by Jesuits, and the word ``credit,'' the derivative, comes from the Latin word ``to believe.'' What is more important to me at this moment than any financial loss that Wall Street suffers or other institutions or shareholders, as much as I am concerned about it, but the biggest loss we run the risk of is Americans believing in their country, that sense of confidence and optimism that has been at the base of our success for more than two centuries.

I say to my colleagues who are wondering whether at this moment we ought to embrace this plan to move us to the right footing, this is the moment which we must take this opportunity to get back our economy, and simultaneously, more important than anything else we achieve, to restore Americans' confidence, their optimism, and their belief that this country can provide a better day for their children and their grandchildren than the one in which they were raised.

Nothing less than that, in my view, is at stake in the vote we will take in a matter of minutes; maybe the most important vote any one of us will ever cast in this body. It will determine the future and the well being of our country. I beseech my colleagues, not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans, and as Members of this remarkable institution, to cast a vote for the future believability in our economy and our country.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Exhibit 1

Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC, October 1, 2008.

Hon. Christopher Dodd,

Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing regarding the Emergency

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

It is the intention of the Department of the Treasury that

all mortgages or mortgage-related assets purchased in the

Troubled Asset Relief Program will be based on or related to

properties in the United States.

Sincerely,

Kevin I. Fromer,

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote threshold on the Dorgan-Bingaman amendment No. 5683 be vitiated, unless the yeas and nays are ordered.

Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank Senator Richard Lugar and Senator Joseph Biden. Joe Biden is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and he and Senator Lugar have worked on this for a long time. We have had five congressional hearings on that committee on the subject matter.

I greatly respect my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Bingaman. However, I would point out to my colleagues that on this particular amendment they offer, the Atomic Energy Act, the Arms Support Control Act, the Hyde amendment, and this bill all have provisions in them that would allow us to respond should India decide to detonate a nuclear weapon.

No one anywhere wants to see a further proliferation of nuclear weapons. India and the United States are the two largest democracies in the world. India is in a very tough and fragile neighborhood. It is important we develop and improve that relationship that has been a tense one since 1974.

This agreement began with the work of President Clinton and was concluded by President Bush. We think it is an agreement worth supporting, and we urge our colleagues to do so and respectfully reject this amendment.

Mr. President, I have spoken. This is a very worthwhile bill. I commend Senator Lugar and Senator Biden for the tremendous work they have done on this legislation over an extended period of time.

I ask for the yeas and nays and urge the adoption of the legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to take a minute and highlight a critically important component of the amendment I am offering today. And that is the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

The vehicle being used for my amendment, H.R. 1424, is a stand-alone mental health parity bill that the House passed last March before months' long negotiations between the House and Senate on a compromise mental health parity bill.

But the actual mental health parity language in my amendment is identical, word-for-word, to the language the Senate passed last week as part of the tax extenders package. The substance of the language is the language that was agreed upon between the Senate and the House last summer.

The Senate passed the tax extender package including the mental health parity language in my amendment by a vote of 93 to 2.

Last week I spoke at length about the many individuals and organizations who are responsible for championing mental health parity legislation and I won't go through them all again on the floor today.

But I will, once again, thank and congratulate Senators Kennedy and Domenici as well as the late Senator Paul Wellstone for their leadership on mental health parity. In the other body, Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad should be extremely proud of their efforts which have helped get us where we are today.

It has taken us more than 10 years, but today we stand at the precipice of hopefully passing one of the most important health care initiatives of the 110th Congress.

In fact, if my amendment passes, it will mark the third time the Senate has passed mental health parity legislation in this Congress alone. The first time it passed unanimously and the second time it passed overwhelmingly, as I previously mentioned, by a vote of 93 to 2

We have come too far and worked too hard not to have mental health parity legislation signed into law this year.

Today, one in five American families are affected by mental illness. Every American knows a friend, a relative, a neighbor, or a coworker whose life has been touched by mental illness in some way.

With this legislation, we are saying that mental illness will no longer take a backseat to physical illness. With this legislation, we are taking an important step toward tearing down the stigma people with mental illness face every day.

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act will end health insurance discrimination between mental health and substance use disorders and medical and surgical conditions. Upon passage of this bill, health insurers will no longer be permitted to charge higher copays or limit the frequency of treatment for people with mental illness than what they would do for a medical or surgical condition.

I join with the more than 250 national organizations representing consumers, family members, advocates, professionals and providers who are urging the Senate and the House to put aside their differences and pass this legislation before the end of the year.

I thank my colleagues and urge them to support my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows, law clerks, and interns on the staff of the Finance Committee be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate on economic stabilization, tax extenders, and energy: Bridget Mallon, Mary Baker, Sean Thomas, and Kelcy Poulson.

I ask unanimous consent that Eric Reither, from Senator Ensign's office, be granted the privilege of the floor.

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

Are we in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the life of a man and a friend who passed away this past weekend, an American icon to many Americans--in fact, not only to Americans but to people all over the world--for more than half a century, a remarkable philanthropist in his generosity, a terrific husband, father to six children, a daredevil both on the screen and off.

In words that have added poignancy at this moment, Paul Newman once said, ``We are such spendthrifts with our lives. The trick of living is to slip on and off the planet with the least fuss you can muster. I'm not running for sainthood. I just happen to think that in life we need to be a little like the farmer, who puts back into the soil what he takes out.''

The New York Times concluded its obituary of Paul Newman with those words. But I would like them to begin my remarks, because I don't think that will be the last thing people should consider when they remember Paul Newman, but the very first.

Where the charitable work of public figures today often seems motivated less by the public interest than by public relations, Paul Newman was a rarity.

An enormous celebrity whose commitment to making a difference meant far more to him than any box office, critical notice or award nomination. Believe me. Having known him or 25 years, I can attest to that.

A star, with genuine humility, he cared deeply about the people, not only of this country but around the world, and made a significant contribution to their benefit in his own way. We are all, of course, familiar with the Newman's Own brand, which raised nearly a quarter- billion dollars for charitable causes in a quarter century.

But that was only part of the story. Paul also founded the Hole In the Wall Gang camps for children with life-threatening diseases that began in Ashford, CT and has since opened three on three different continents.

Those camps serve more than 15,000 children annually, with all services provided free of charge to everyone.

He also founded the Rowdy Ridge Gang Camp, for families recovering from drug addiction and survivors of spousal abuse.

These were no vanity causes to which he simply attached his name and face.

Paul was intimately involved in their operations and success.

In fact, just this afternoon, I spoke with a friend of mine. I serve on the advisory board of the Hole in the Wall Camp in Ashford, CT, but a good friend of mine is on the board of directors of that camp. He had flown from San Francisco to be back in Connecticut today where people in the Hole in the Wall Gang camp are gathering to remember Paul Newman. They each got up and talked about his intimate involvement with that camp. Believe me, as someone who has been involved on a daily basis, he worked and cared about the maintenance of that facility, as he did the ones on the other two continents I described.

Indeed, these examples remind us that every endeavor to which Paul Newman committed himself over his 83 years shared one fundamental quality: They were the product of an enduring appreciation for the special, unique place he was afforded in our society.

You could not spend any time with Paul without noticing that he had remarkable life.

A wife and family that were not there simply to support him, but to push and prod him, to tease him, to that wonderful kind of vitality we see in vibrant families, a career that afforded him opportunities and experiences many of the characters he played could not have imagined.

And Paul Newman knew it.

But as much as he recognized the good fortune behind his success, he also understood the obligations that came with it.

This was never someone who pretended to be something he was not. He did not rise from poverty or grow up in a broken home. His father was, in fact, a successful entrepreneur himself from the Shaker Heights section of Cleveland, OH.

But to watch Paul's Oscar-nominated turn in that remarkable courtroom drama, ``The Verdict,'' is to witness someone whose true kinship was not with those who came from wealth, from power or privilege, but with those who struggled, who earned, who overcame.

For all his generosity, kind-heartedness, and compassion, there was another side to this man, one that was utterly driven to succeed, whether it was acting or directing, film or theater, charity or business.

I suspect I was not the only friend of Paul's who did not share his passion for racing, which he often did at our State's Lime Rock Park.

But compared to Hollywood, Paul found racing's lack of pretension refreshing.

The pure love he had for the sport was what made it such a thrill for him--a thrill he pursued into his eighties.

He was impossible to pigeonhole. I loved his sense of humor and irony, a devilish spirit which hid--just barely--a contempt for the predictable and lazy you couldn't help but admire.

He once commented that the ``single highest honor'' paid to him was learning he was 19th on Nixon's so-called ``enemies list'' assembled by Charles Colson.

He named the Hole in the Wall Gang camps after Butch Cassidy's band of outlaws and offered cowboy hats to children who had lost their hair because of chemotherapy.

The first vat of Newman's Own salad dressing was stirred with a canoe paddle, to give some idea of his sense of humor.

And one of the biographies he wrote for a local production read, ``Paul Newman is probably best known for his spectacularly successful food conglomerate. In addition to giving the profits to charity he also ran Frank Sinatra out of the spaghetti sauce business. On the downside, the spaghetti sauce is outgrossing his films.''

Let it never be said there wasn't a sparkle in those famous blue eyes of Paul's to the end.

In a career that required him to fabricate many a character and experience, Paul Newman's rebellious yet playful quality always struck me as completely genuine.

It often masked and helped him promote some very serious work.

A resident of Westport, CT he made enduring contributions to our State. Some will remember that he insisted on holding the first movie premiere in New Haven history when ``Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid'' made

its debut at the Roger Sherman theater. The Presiding Officer is familiar with that community.

But for the sprinkle of glitter a star of Paul's magnitude brought to Connecticut, the difference he made to our communities was far more lasting--from helping to preserve open spaces such as the Trout Brook Valley and renovate the Westport Historical Society and its Country Playhouse, to the active role he played in government at the local, State, and Federal levels.

Like all Americans at this hour, I will miss him, a great guy and a good friend. As much as I will miss his friendship and his performances on the television screen or at the movie theater, I will miss being reminded every time that we saw him just how good and decent a man he truly was.

Our thoughts and prayers are, obviously, with Joanne, his lovely wife, his daughters, and the rest of the Newman family.

I wanted to thank them for sharing with us these many years a great guy.

Mr. President, I have a wonderful obituary that was written in the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Before my colleague from New Jersey leaves the floor, I wish to commend him for his comments. I had an opportunity--I was not on the floor the whole time but was in the adjoining offices. Of course, with modern technology, we have the opportunity to listen to each other and express our views. I commend him on his. It was a very thorough and important hour to take. We have few opportunities which allow us to have a chance to lay this out as the Senator from New Jersey has just done, going back and examining sort of the autopsy of all of this.

We are sort of caught up in the moment and exactly what is happening from moment to moment with the stock market and the bond market, the credit markets across the country and the unemployment numbers. But I think going back and understanding the genesis of this is tremendously valuable. We have some very important and difficult decisions to make in the next few days that are critically important. He has outlined them as well. None of them are perfect. None of us like being here. But we have a challenge in front of us.

I think he did an admirable job of explaining this, of where we have come and the idea of how we come back to the decision we make in the next 24 or 48 hours but also what needs to be done after that to make sure we do not find ourselves back here in a matter of weeks or months grappling with even more compound and difficult economic choices.

So I did not want to miss the opportunity to come out and thank you.

I thank the Senator for that. The Senator has pointed out, of course, just as the Presiding Officer, his great interest in these matters, and the Senator from New Jersey is, of course, a very worthwhile member of our committee, as is the Presiding Officer.

As we look at these questions, and I intend to do that. In fact, I am not going to wait long. Our intention is that on the committee, we will move aggressively--in a matter of days--to examine further as to how we arrived in this situation, No. 1; No. 2, to monitor how the bromide that we have been offered by the Secretary of the Treasury, the solution to all of this, is working; and then thirdly, of course, how do we reconstruct or construct anew the architecture for a 21st-century financial services economy or one that depends upon financial services as much as this one does?

Clearly, the architecture of our regulatory system, some rules of which go back to the 19th century--many, of

course, were adopted in the wake of the Great Depression back in the 1920s and 1930s--needs to be revisited. The world is a very different place today, much more complicated, global in its complexity, and clearly warrants a fresh look at some new structures. And it is my intention as the committee chairman, along with my colleagues who serve on the committee and others who are involved in these issues, that we begin our work very quickly to address those questions.

I see my friend and colleague from Virginia. Of course, the irony or ironies is I was just about to talk about him, and this was not prearranged, him arriving on the floor, and he may have some comments to make as the system here allows us to go back and forth. I really came over to commend Senator Menendez, but I have some comments I want to make about my friend from Virginia, but I do not want to deprive him of the opportunity to be heard.

Well, I can tell you, my friend, the majority leader, Senator Reid--I know from having met with him earlier today--is in constant consultation and discussions with the leadership of the Republican minority of this body as well as the Democratic and Republican leadership of the other body, the House of Representatives, to determine when and how we can go forward on the legislation that we crafted both here and there over the last 2 weeks to respond to this economic crisis we are in.

I am proud to have been involved, and I am sad to have been involved. Normally, we craft bills and we take pride in the fact that we are solving a problem, and I hope we are in this case. But I am fairly confident we will be able to get to another vote and that the other body will bring up the matter as well. The order of all of this is being discussed as you and I stand in this Chamber. No final conclusions have been reached about that, but I know people are working hard to determine how best to proceed forward.

The last thing we need is to have this not work again. We better decide whether we are serious about this. This is a difficult vote--I would not suggest otherwise--but it is an important one. I know that those who cast votes yesterday are having some second thoughts about the condition they placed us in and are trying to find a way to get back on track again. So I am very optimistic we can do that. I know the White House is now engaged much more aggressively than it has been on this issue, which I welcome. I know the leadership of the House is also working on this. I do not want to predict things with any great certainty, but I am quite confident we are working in the right direction and we should end up with a very positive result within the next 24 or 48 hours.

I love that as well. My colleague from Virginia, during moments of stress and strain over the years, when it looks as though all is lost and we could never come back together, he has pulled me aside in one corner or niche of this building, and I can hear him say it over and over again, in the words of Winston Churchill: Never, never, never give in. We are at one of those moments.

I thank the Senator. This is not a prearranged or prestaged event. It was my intent at this moment to spend a few minutes talking about my friend from Virginia with whom I have just shared, once again, another memorable moment, as he talks about the moment we are in. That is characteristic of my friend from Virginia. One of the reasons he will be missed, with his well-deserved retirement, is that throughout my 28 years here--actually I have known John Warner a bit longer than that, but we have served here together for almost three decades--in every moment I can think of that we have been in a moment not unlike the moment we are in--none quite so grave economically--it has always been the posture and position of John Warner to see this body not as one that is divided by this architectural divide that separates us by party, which must confound and confuse the public as they look at us, wondering if we ever begin to think of ourselves as Americans with a great privilege of serving in this historic institution, that we would come together to find solutions to problems.

It has been characteristic of John Warner, from the first moments I have known him, to always see this divide as being sort of a silly barrier; that it probably would be a wise, although probably not a welcome idea, that the seating arrangements ought not to be based on party but maybe some other configuration where you actually have

to sit next to someone you may disagree with or of a different party from time to time. That, in itself, may serve as a crucible in which better decisions might be reached.

I am going to miss him very much on many different levels. We have only served on a couple of committees together over the years, not by choice but by circumstance. Yet on those occasions, I have enjoyed immensely the work of John Warner. There have been times--and he will remind me often--when we haven't shared a philosophical standpoint in common over the years. But on levels far more significant and far more important to me--and I would hope with other Members as well--my relationship with John Warner is one based on a love of this institution, the importance of it. The hope and the aspirations of a people depend upon it. That, more than anything else, is what I have enjoyed so much about working with John Warner, his reverence for this body.

I will use the words of John Stennis, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee--the position which John Warner now holds--who spoke at a Democratic caucus meeting. He paused when he stood up for several seconds and said nothing at all, and the room quieted, as you might imagine, to a stillness. The first words of John Stennis were: I am a Senate man.

I thought, what a remarkable moment, how he began his discourse with us, those of us who were new, by describing himself as a person of this institution. John Warner is a Senate man. He has done many things of great import in his life. But if I were to be asked by people what is a good example of a Senate person--I guess more politically correct today, given the fact that we have a lot of diversity of gender in this institution--John Warner has been a Senate person. He understood the historical value of this institution and the importance it continues to play. While we have had our differences philosophically, we have enjoyed great friendship on a personal level.

I cherish in my office a wonderful photograph of John Warner and I sailing together in my Old Friendship sloop off the coast of Connecticut and Rhode Island, enjoying great dinners together, a game of tennis every now and then over the years. So beyond the political discourse and the substantive debates or disagreements, there are relationships here that are far more significant on a human level than that.

I was thinking the other day about one of these battles that goes on from time to time. This one was over which State was going to win the contract to build the Seawolf submarine. The Presiding Officer from Rhode Island would have certainly taken the side of the New England point of view. It was a serious discussion about whether it would be in Newport News or in Connecticut and Rhode Island that the contract would be awarded. There was a lot of jockeying back and forth, a serious debate and discussion. It ultimately worked out well for both States and the country as a result. But the final decision came down that Connecticut was going to be awarded that contract.

In a moment like that, after weeks and weeks of back and forth, you might expect that the delegation or the Member you have been dealing with on the other side would feel embittered or upset, a variety of emotions that would normally be put on the negative side of the ledger. I don't think I have ever told this to too many of our colleagues. I arrived back in my apartment that night feeling good about the result and the fact that it worked out well. And there on the outside of my door was a package. I opened it and there was a first edition copy of Jack London's ``The Seawolf.'' It was sent to me by my colleague from Virginia, with a congratulatory note on Connecticut and Rhode Island prevailing in this particular contest; that the country would be better if we all worked together to get this new piece of military hardware built.

I thought to myself, what an incredible gesture at a moment like this, the sensitivity, the appreciation, seeking out a first edition copy of Jack London's ``The Seawolf,'' the very program we were talking about. That is the kind of person John Warner has been.

While there will be great debate and discussion, and he has certainly done a fantastic job working with Carl Levin on the Armed Services Committee and has been a great custodian of guaranteeing and protecting our Nation's security during that tenure, it is those moments of arriving home that night many years ago and picking up that book that I still cherish and have by the way. I will read it to my daughters at an appropriate time in their lives, a great story in and of itself. It is moments like that.

I wish you the very best, dear friend.

I thank my friend for his distinguished career. There are plenty of references to that in the Record. I thought I would share at least a couple of personal anecdotes.

That is right. We hope it works. At the time that happened, I kept thinking of the person who once described a camel as being a horse that was designed by Congress in the sense of building two parts of this boat and welding them together. It was a perfect congressional result of a matter. Nonetheless, I cherish those comments.

I wish you the very best. Thank you for your service to our country.

Chuck Hagel

I wanted to mention as well a couple of other colleagues who are also retiring. If I could, one is my great friend from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, with whom I have served on both the Banking and the Foreign Relations Committees for the past 12 years, truly a wonderful person. We have worked together on a number of issues.

He got his first job at 9 years of age when he began to help his family economically. He was 16 when his dad died and took over raising his family along with his mother. I believe most of my colleagues are aware that he was a true hero of the Vietnam war. He saved his brother who, in fact, was serving with him in that conflict.

He has done a remarkable job in his public service years as well. We serve on the Foreign Relations Committee together and the Banking Committee. Whether the issue has been Iraq, Serbia, or Croatia, Cuba, regardless of who comes before our committee, no one asks tougher questions or gets straighter answers than Chuck Hagel.

On Cuba, for instance--again, an explosive issue politically--Chuck and I offered a resolution to end the embargo in Cuba because we agreed that the current policy toward the island has failed the Cuban people and the American people alike and because we refused to let America wait on the sidelines while the future of one of our closest neighbors is determined by others.

It is that kind of courage that he brings to the debate, kind of blows through it all and says: What is the right thing for our country and, in this case, the people of Cuba?

On the Banking Committee, Chuck and I worked for months to reinvent the infrastructure of our Nation with the creation of a national infrastructure bank, 2\1/2\ years developing that bill. In fact, it was Chuck who convinced me we ought to announce the outcome of our work one day in August last year. I argued with him a bit. I said: No one will pay any attention to announcing an infrastructure bill in August. Who wants to hear about infrastructure in August.

Chuck said: No, let's have that press conference and let people know what we are doing.

We met in the gallery at 10 a.m. I think we had two reporters who showed up. I said: I think I was right, Chuck. No one cares about infrastructure.

By 5 o'clock that afternoon, Chuck Hagel and I were on every TV screen in America because, regrettably, of the great tragedy in Minneapolis that occurred that afternoon. The bridge collapsed. Of course, infrastructure was the subject matter for the next weeks to come. So, once again, Chuck Hagel understood the timing of an issue in bringing it up and how important it was for our Nation. Little did we know that tragedy would fall on interstate 35-W over the Mississippi River.

There again was Chuck Hagel, standing with a colleague of a different background, putting aside ideology and politics to work together to find new and innovative ways to address the Nation's most urgent priorities. That is Chuck Hagel, a remarkable person and a very good Senator over the years. Patriotic, never partisan, tough but fair, always engaged, sometimes even confrontational, but never, ever belligerent, a strong Member. This institution will miss Chuck's ability to transcend politics and serve the American people. As such, the people of Nebraska deserve our thanks for sending Chuck Hagel to serve with us over these past 12 years. I will miss him. We all wish him the very best. He served our Nation very well during his service.

Pete Domenici

The last Member I want to talk about is Pete Domenici with whom I have had the privilege of working on so many issues over the years. In fact, only a few weeks ago I was honored to be asked to come and speak on behalf of Pete Domenici in Las Cruces at New Mexico State University where the Center for Public Policy is named for Pete Domenici. It was quite a gathering at which I was the keynote speaker, where Pete was being recognized for his contribution to the State and our country.

Jim Baker, former Secretary of State, spoke at the conference as well over that weekend. It was quite a gathering of people from that State to express their appreciation for Pete's 36 years of serving the people of his home State. Again, a legislative record that is clear and almost without peer in many ways.

Because of Pete Domenici our country will soon recognize that mental illness is as serious as any physical illness. He, Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone were so pivotal in making us all aware of how important this issue is. Without Pete's leadership, I don't think this would have happened. Without Pete going to his colleagues and saying: Let me tell you about my family--he had the courage to talk about his own family and what they have been through--it has made a difference. Today millions of people will benefit as a result of Pete's leadership on an issue that is going to make a difference in their lives. Because of Pete's leadership, candidates for President in both parties now acknowledge that we have to be serious about doing something about global warming; again, serious about reducing our emissions, ending our dependence on oil.

Again, John Warner and Pete Domenici are classic examples of people who step out of what you might normally associate them with on an issue and get involved and make a difference, almost overnight, because they said this is worthy of our attention and certainly serious, so serious that it demands action.

Thanks to Pete's relentless vigilance, I am confident that safe and secure nuclear energy, which I happen to be a supporter of as well, will play a large role in helping us address one of our largest problems in the years ahead. Because of Pete, last year over 5 million children in 51 counties studied what character means in the classroom. Pete and I are the authors of that idea. It started out as a small idea in his State and my State, to insist that part of the day, on the athletic fields, in classes--not just for some 15 minutes--students embrace one of the six pillars of great character and make it a part of the seamless garment of a classroom.

Today, as I say, in 51 counties, as well as in virtually almost every State, Character Counts is there, to help children learn early on the importance of what honesty and integrity mean, among the other pillars of good character.

Yet when we talk about Pete and what he has accomplished for our communities and our country, we would be doing a great disservice if we were to sum up his legacy as some series of issues. My affection for these Members I am talking about transcends the substantive issues which they have championed over the years. It goes deeper than that.

Pete's contribution to the Senate will be measured in a volume of bills he introduced with a number of votes he took; some 13,000, by the way, for which I think there are only 8 or 10 Senators who have a similar record.

But who Pete Domenici is, is much more than that. Long before he was a Senator, Pete was a wonderful father and husband. He grew up in a remarkable family, an immigrant family to our country--the classic American story. Many of our fellow colleagues can tell similar tales of how they arrived in this great Nation of ours and the contributions they have made.

Long before he dreamt of becoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Pete was a boy counting pennies at his father's grocery business in New Mexico. So often all we hear about politicians is negativity--and it breeds cynicism, too much, frankly. But in my experience, the most effective legislators have remarkable strength and an inner confidence. That is Pete Domenici in so many ways.

You only need to know his wife Nancy, whom Jackie and I have gotten to know--they are neighbors of ours on Capitol Hill. We have had wonderful dinners together on Sunday nights, with Pete doing some of the cooking, and Nancy, I suspect, doing most of it, but Pete taking credit for most of it, as we would gather and have wonderful family gatherings, as they would embrace and cherish the new arrivals of my family, my two daughters. So we are losing not just a colleague but a neighbor and a friend and a person I care deeply about.

Together, these two people, Nancy and Pete, have raised eight wonderful children. As one of six myself, their house reminds me so much of growing up in my own house--kids, very independent thinkers, all challenging their parents on every imaginable subject matter, and then going out the door and parroting their parents' positions on every issue--the parents never to appreciate the fact that their words were actually carrying the day. It can be messy in those households, but it is never boring, and certainly never so in the Domenici household as well.

That is why there is one legislative accomplishment that best captures Pete Domenici, and that is the Character Counts bill that we started together in 1994. Character Counts was founded on a simple notion: that core ethical values are not just important to us as individuals, they form the foundation of a democratic society as well.

Values like trustworthiness and respect, responsibility and fairness, caring and citizenship are at the core of who Pete is as a human being. Despite the fact that it was Pete's own family, heritage, and faith that taught him character's importance--his mother and father, the nuns in his Catholic school--he recognized something that too often gets lost today: that in a society that celebrates our differences--our heritage, our personal interests as individuals--character is the one thing that transcends them, whether they be cultural, religious, economic, or social.

Somewhere along the way we lost that as a country. We forgot how important character is to the strength of our families, our communities, our institutions, and who we are as individuals.

Quite frankly, when Pete retires at the end of this year, in a matter of days now, I am worried we will be losing a piece of that from the institution in which he and I serve--the value that he has brought on this subject matter and so many others.

So let me say thanks to Pete for his warmth and friendship, and I wish him and Nancy the very best in the years to come. He is a remarkable individual and one who will make a difference in whatever he decides to do with the remainder of his life. I thank him for all of his contributions, and I look forward

to seeing him and Nancy as often as we can in the years to come.

Wayne Allard

Mr. President, I, again, want to say a kind word or two about Wayne Allard as well, who is retiring. We serve on the Banking Committee together. He has a wonderful family history dating back decades in Colorado. Some of the earliest arrivals from the East were the Allard family in northern Colorado. That family has made wonderful contributions.

Wayne has been a wonderful member of the Banking Committee. We have not spent a lot of time on many issues together, but I can tell you, on issues such as regulatory reform and working together to see we had a good housing bill last summer, Wayne Allard was a very constructive and positive member, and he can be very proud of his contribution to this body.

Certainly, as to the landmark Transportation bill we sent to the President just a few years ago, Wayne Allard was as much responsible for that as any Member of this body, coming from a State where you normally would not think of transportation issues, certainly not mass transit issues as being pivotal. But Wayne Allard played a very important role in all of that.

So to Wayne Allard, his wife Joan, and their family, I wish them the very best as well in their retirement years.

Again, Mr. President, to my friend, John Warner, a special thanks, my dear friend. Now, when they say there is a white-haired Senator roaming around the floor, they will not have to guess whether it is the guy from Virginia or the guy from Connecticut, unless someone else arrives here with a full head of white hair. So to the white-haired caucus, again to John Warner, I thank you, dear friend.

Mr. President, today Senator Domenici and I introduced a resolution designating the third week of October as ``National Character Counts Week.'' Senator Domenici and I have worked together for many years on the issue of character education and hope that by designating a special week to this cause, we may highlight the importance of character building activities in schools not only this week but all year long.

In 1994, Senator Domenici and I first established the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project and have worked regularly since then to commemorate National Character Counts Week. Character Counts was founded on a simple notion: Our core ethical values aren't just important to us as individuals--they form the very foundation of democratic society. We know that we in order to face our challenges as communities and as a Nation, we need our children to be both well- educated and trained--and that begins with instilling character in our children.

Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship--these are the six pillars of character. Character education provides students a context within which to learn those values and integrate them into our daily lives. Indeed, if we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we not only miss an opportunity, but as also jeopardize our future. Children want direction-- to be taught right from wrong. Young people yearn for consistent adult involvement, and when they get it, we know they are less inclined to use illegal drugs, to vandalize, or commit suicide. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that approximately 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education.

Character education programs work. Currently, there are character education programs across all 50 States in rural, urban and suburban areas at every grade level. Schools across the country that have adopted strong character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement within the community.

Support for character education crosses party lines. Indeed, there is no stronger advocate for character education than my good friend, Senator Pete Domenici. I have had the distinct pleasure of working with him to ensure that all our children not only acquire strong math and science skills, but also the skills they need to develop into good and decent human beings.

Senator Domenici has worked tirelessly on behalf of our Nation's children, and as he winds down his career in the Senate, I would like to take a moment to thank him for his good work and friendship. He will be sorely missed in the halls of this building, and we all wish his wife, Nancy, and him the very best.

This renewed focus on character sends a wonderful message to Americans and will help reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and schools involved. With this resolution, it is my hope that even more communities will make character education a part of every child's life. I hope that my colleagues will support this important effort.

Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I have introduced a resolution designating October 16, 2008, Lights On Afterschool Day. Lights on Afterschool brings students, parents, educators, lawmakers, and community and business leaders together to celebrate afterschool programs. This year, more than 1 million Americans are expected to attend about 7,500 events designed to raise awareness and support for these much needed programs.

In America today, 1 in 4 youth, more than 14 million children, go home alone after the school day ends. This includes more than 40,000 kindergartners and almost 4 million middle school students in grades six to eight. On the other hand, only 6.5 million children, or approximately 11 percent of school-aged children, participate in afterschool programs. An additional 15 million would participate if a quality program were available in their community.

Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of afterschool programs, is celebrated every October in communities nationwide to call attention to the importance of afterschool programs for America's children, families, and communities. Lights On Afterschool was launched in October 2000 with celebrations in more than 1,200 communities nationwide. The event has grown from 1,200 celebrations in 2001 to more than 7,500 today. This October, 1 million Americans will celebrate Lights On Afterschool!

Quality afterschool programs should be available to children in all communities. These programs support working families and prevent kids from being both victims and perpetrators of violent crime. They also help parents in balancing work and home life. Quality afterschool programs help to engage students in their communities, and when students are engaged, they are more successful in their educational endeavors.

In our work on the Senate Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have been working for more than 4 years to impress upon our colleagues the importance of afterschool programming. It is our hope that they will join us on October 16 to celebrate the importance of afterschool programs in their communities back home.