S10460 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 2, 2008 

at $1.8 trillion. But, regrettably, its liabilities exceeded its assets and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had to step in and 

rescue it when the value of its assets plummeted. 

Most recently, two Bear Stearns hedge 

funds, based in the Cayman Islands, but run 

out of New York, collapsed without any 

warning to its investors. Because of the location of these financial institutions—in a secrecy jurisdiction, outside the U.S. safety 

net of appropriate supervision—their desperate financial condition went undetected 

until it was too late. 

Of course, BCCI Overseas, which was part 

of the then largest bankruptcy in history, 

was also ‘‘chartered’’ in the Caymans. 

We have to learn from our mistakes. Any 

significant infusion to the financial system 

must carry assurances that it will not add to 

the pool of money beyond the safety net and 

supervisory authority of the United States. 

Moreover, the trillions of dollars currently 

offshore and invested in funds that could impact the American economy must be brought 

under appropriate supervision. 

If Congress and Treasury fail to bring 

under U.S. supervisory authority the financial institutions and transactions in secrecy 

jurisdictions, there will be no transparency 

with the inevitable consequences of the lack 

of transparency—namely, a repeat of the unbridled greed and recklessness that we now 

face. Because of the monolithic character of 

world financial markets, a default crisis anywhere becomes a default crisis everywhere. 

f 

HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES 

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with 

great sadness and a heavy heart to remember a young man and a great 

American. Army 1LT Thomas Brown, a 

native of Shelton, CT, was killed in action in Iraq a few days ago—the 41st 

citizen of my State to lose his life in 

the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. He was 26 

years of age. 

We honor the sacrifice of all our men 

and women who give their lives serving 

this country. But it is never easy to 

lose someone so young—especially 

someone for whom life so clearly had 

much more in store. 

As a teenager, Lieutenant Brown attended Notre Dame Catholic High 

School in Fairport, where it has been 

said he was all but inseparable from his 

twin brother, Timothy. He was an 

honor student and an athlete. 

He would graduate from George 

Mason University in 2004, and like so 

many young people, he was eager to 

serve his country—to give something 

back. He attended Ranger school, Airborne school and officer candidate 

school. 

This young man would go on to serve 

in the Army’s 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat 

Team of the 1st Armored Division. 

There, I understand, Lieutenant Brown 

earned great respect and admiration 

from his fellow soldiers. 

Lieutenant Brown was known among 

his comrades as an officer who led by 

example, not by order, and was immensely proud to serve his country in 

the U.S. Army. He was also known for 

his passionate love of the Boston Red 

Sox, and for his truly generous spirit. 

In recognition of his heroic service 

and sacrifice, Thomas Brown was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star 

Medal and the Purple Heart. 

One of the saddest facts in this young 

soldier’s passing is that he was due to 

take leave and return home in 3 short 

weeks to visit his friends, family and 

girlfriend. He wanted nothing more 

than the chance to visit home. 

Timothy Brown said recently of his 

brother: ‘‘He wanted to make a difference.’’ 

Let the record show that 1LT Thomas J. Brown, in his 26 short years on 

this Earth, did make a difference—and 

that we are forever grateful for the remarkable contributions he made to the 

country he did so love. 

f 

U.S.-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION 

AGREEMENT 

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to 

convey some brief remarks regarding 

my views on the United States-India 

civil nuclear cooperation agreement. I 

cast a ‘‘yes’’ vote on this agreement, 

but not without some serious reservations regarding the likely damage this 

agreement will do to the global nuclear 

nonproliferation regime. 

I had the opportunity to visit India 

earlier this year, spending a day meeting senior government leaders in New 

Delhi and another day in Hyderabad, 

where I witnessed first hand the dynamic entrepreneurism that has recently transformed India into an economic powerhouse, albeit with still extreme poverty. Let me be clear: The 

United States and India, sharing a 

common commitment to democracy 

and personal freedoms, are natural allies. I congratulate President Bush for 

building upon the initial steps taken 

by his predecessor, President Clinton, 

in nurturing closer ties between our 

two great nations and laying the building blocks for an enduring strategic 

partnership. 

India’s exclusion from global trade in 

civil nuclear energy, a direct consequence of its 1974 nuclear weapons 

test utilizing equipment and materials 

imported for a civilian energy program, represented a continuing thorn 

to an otherwise blossoming United 

States-Indian relationship. Right or 

wrong, it was always the United States 

that was viewed as the leading advocate of the firewall between India and 

global nuclear trade—even though 

India never signed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, NPT. So I understand why a resolution to this issue 

was necessary if the United States and 

India were to achieve a genuine partnership that could endure in coming 

decades. 

My strongest criticism of the United 

States-India nuclear cooperation 

agreement is that, in exchange for a 

historic exception to the principle that 

those states that refuse to abide by the 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty cannot enjoy the fruits of global civilian 

nuclear trade, the United States did 

not ask enough in return from the Indian Government. We could have 

pressed New Delhi to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and forswear all future nuclear weapons tests. 

But we did not. We could have urged 

New Delhi to agree to a national moratorium on production of nuclear fissile 

material, linking that moratorium to a 

similar pledge by Pakistan. But we did 

not. 

I worry over the message this agreement sends to states like North Korea 

and Iran. Are their leaders to believe 

that, with the passage of time, one day 

the international community will also 

accept their nuclear weapons programs 

as a de facto reality and move to accommodate such programs? How do we 

convince the international community 

to demonstrate solidarity against 

Iran’s violations of the NPT while giving a pass to India’s refusal to abide by 

this very same treaty? Of course I am 

not equating the two states—India is a 

democratic regime, a friend of the 

United States, and a force for stability 

in the world. There is no comparison. 

But I am concerned when we begin to 

divide the world into ‘‘good’’ 

proliferators and ‘‘bad’’ proliferators— 

instead, we need to send the message 

that all nuclear proliferation harms 

our security and increases the odds 

that a nuclear weapon will one day be 

used and kill millions. 

Nevertheless, at every step of the 

process over the last 3 years, administration officials often appeared excessively sensitive to the need to smooth 

over domestic political concerns in 

India while downplaying concerns expressed by nonproliferation experts. So 

I congratulate Chairman BIDEN and 

Ranking Member LUGAR for their persistence in ensuring this final agreement is a real improvement over initial administration proposals. The legislation before us clarifies some of the 

deliberate ambiguities contained within the Article 123 United States-India 

agreement and the international exemption for India provided by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. 

The United States-India civil nuclear 

initiative is a flawed agreement. Nonetheless, I am casting a ‘‘yes’’ vote for 

this legislation for two primary reasons. First, in many respects, the damage to the global non-proliferation regime has already been done. The decision taken last month by the Nuclear 

Suppliers Group to provide a universal 

exemption to permit India to participate in civil nuclear trade means that, 

even if the United States Congress 

were to reject this agreement, other 

nations like Russia and France are free 

to initiate their own civilian agreements with India. The net result of a 

United States rejection would likely 

only ensure that United States companies—and United States workers—will 

be unable to participate in the fruits of 

civilian nuclear trade with India. 

Second, a ‘‘no’’ vote on this agreement will be unfairly construed as a rejection of a broader strategic alliance 

between the United States and India. 

Through his rhetoric and actions, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
October 2, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10461 

President Bush unwisely has transformed this nuclear cooperation agreement into the centerpiece of our bilateral relationship with New Delhi. In 

doing so, he has ignored the broad 

range of areas on which the United 

States and India can and should cooperate—ranging from science and 

technology to economic and business 

partnerships. In the security realm, 

our two nations should be doing more 

together on counterterrorism, especially in the wake of the devastating 

attacks in India over the past year. 

I strongly believe in the promise of 

the future partnership between our two 

great nations. I am voting in favor of 

this agreement, despite its serious nonproliferation flaws, because I do not 

want to jeopardize that emerging alliance that can bring so many benefits 

to both of our peoples. 

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would 

like to take a few moments to discuss 

my vote against the India Nuclear 

Agreement. 

In 2006, I voted in favor of the Henry 

J. Hyde United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act, primarily because of the safeguards included in the act that would ensure 

that assistance to Indian’s civilian nuclear program to meet its domestic energy needs, would not assist the Indian 

nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the United 

States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act that we voted on last night 

has the full scope of necessary protections. 

India is the largest democracy in the 

world. Its economy is growing by 8 percent annually. Their domestic energy 

needs are enormous and they simply do 

not have enough indigenous resources 

to meet them. India is an important 

ally and our nation has benefitted from 

a strong trade and defense relationship 

for decades. Furthermore, my State of 

Rhode Island has prospered because of 

a vibrant Indian community. I believe 

that the United States should do all 

that it can to assist India and further 

strengthen the partnership between the 

two countries. 

However, our country’s relationship 

with India must be balanced with concerns about nuclear proliferation and 

the stability of the Middle East and 

Asia. 

I believe that proliferation of nuclear 

weapons and weapons material and 

technology is the greatest threat facing our country today. The most effective method of controlling such proliferation is a multilateral regime 

where all countries are subject to the 

same standards. 

The agreement that was approved by 

the Senate last night establishes a separate and unique regime for India. This 

particular agreement would allow India 

to be treated like a nuclear weapons 

state but not impose upon India the responsibilities and commitments placed 

on other nuclear weapons states. As 

such I believe that this particular 

agreement is flawed. This agreement 

has the potential to actually weaken 

the carefully constructed, long-standing nuclear nonproliferation regime 

that the world depends on to prevent 

the spread of nuclear weapons. 

This agreement does provide some 

benefits. Under this agreement India 

will put 14 of its nuclear reactors under 

safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the 

IAEA. This will help to ensure that 

these reactors and the fuel supplied to 

them will be used only for the peaceful 

production of nuclear poser. In addition the IAEA will bring its expertise 

to help to improve the operational 

safety of the reactors. 

On the other hand the rest of India’s 

nuclear reactors will not come under 

the IAEA and these reactors can be 

used as India wishes to produce power 

or to produce more material for nuclear weapons. But it is troublesome to 

me that India retains the right to deny 

IAEA access to some or all of the reactors that it has now agreed will come 

under IAEA agreements. 

While this agreement will help India 

with its energy needs, India is also now 

free to use its limited indigenous uranium for to support a build up of its 

nuclear weapons stockpile. India has 

specifically preserved its ability to increase the number of nuclear weapons 

in its arsenal, its ability to increase 

the amount of nuclear weapons materials that it produces and its right to 

conduct a test of a nuclear weapon. 

While India has a voluntary moratorium on testing, India still refuses to 

sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to support a fissile material cutoff treaty. Finally, I am greatly concerned about the effect this agreement 

will have on the region, particularly 

the reaction of Pakistan. Pakistan will 

undoubtedly seek a similar agreement 

if it perceives an increased threat from 

India. Pakistan may seek to partner 

with China—and the United States 

would have few grounds to protest. In 

such a case, Pakistan will have additional access to nuclear technology. 

While I believe that the United 

States should help India with its urgent energy needs, I believe we missed 

an opportunity to provide assistance 

with adequate and necessary safeguards in place. For these reasons, I reluctantly decided to vote against this 

agreement. It is my hope that the 

United States and India continue to 

work together to make the world safer 

from nuclear proliferation. 

f 

IN MEMORIAM: PAUL NEWMAN 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am 

honored to remember a great American 

icon who was a renowned actor, activist, and philanthropist—Paul Newman, 

who passed away on September 26, 2008, 

at the age of 83. 

Paul’s movie career spanned five decades, acting in over 65 films. He captivated all of America with his natural 

on-screen talent and his off-screen ability to give to others. He was more than 

an incredibly gifted, Academy Awardwinning actor; his zeal for life was evident through his remarkable charitable 

work and favorite pastimes. 

Paul Leonard Newman was born in 

Shaker Heights, OH, on January 26, 

1925, to Arthur and Theresa Newman. 

Though he hoped to be a professional 

athlete, his gift for the performing arts 

showed early as he acted in grade 

school and high school plays. After 

high school he served in the U.S. Navy 

Air Corps and eventually went on to 

study theatre at prestigious institutions such as the Yale School of Drama 

and the famous Actor’s Studio in New 

York. 

In the 1950s his acting career began 

in theatre and television. He moved to 

films and was eventually nominated for 

10 Oscars—winning Best Actor for ‘‘The 

Color of Money’’ and also two honorary 

Oscars. He played many major roles in 

classic American films such as ‘‘Exodus,’’ ‘‘Hud,’’ ‘‘Butch Cassidy and the 

Sundance Kid,’’ ‘‘The Verdict,’’ ‘‘The 

Sting,’’ and ‘‘Absence of Malice.’’ His 

legendary performances will forever 

entertain and captivate the American 

imagination. 

Paul was not only an iconic actor, 

but he also fervently cared about our 

Nation. He opposed the Vietnam war 

and ardently favored civil rights and 

equality. In addition he was a worldclass race car driver, and a flourishing 

nonprofit entrepreneur. He founded the 

popular Newman’s Own line of food 

products 25 years ago, and 100 percent 

of its profits are donated to charities 

around the world. Among those charities are the Hole in the Wall Camps 

that Paul helped to create over 20 

years ago. These camps allow for a 

carefree experience for children with 

illnesses. Newman’s Own has raised 

$250 million so far. 

When his son, Scott, tragically 

passed away, Paul established the 

Scott Newman Center in 1980 to prevent drug abuse through educating 

children. He also helped to cofound the 

Committee Encouraging Corporate 

Philanthropy, a consortium of global 

CEOs in support of corporate giving. 

Paul Newman lived his life by giving to 

others and encouraging others to give. 

He is survived by his wonderful wife 

of 50 years, award-winning actress Joanne Woodward; five daughters, Susan, 

Stephanie, Melissa, Nell, and Clea; two 

grandchildren; and his brother Arthur. 

I send my deepest condolences to them. 

Our Nation lost an amazing talent 

and humanitarian with the passing of 

Paul Newman, but his legacy to the 

State of California and to all of America will live on. 

f 

GAO SLOT AUCTION RULING 

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as 

chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing 

and Urban Development, and Related 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE