S10610 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

searching for the American dream, believing what Lady Liberty said when 

she said: Give me your tired, your poor, 

yearning to be free, another member of 

my family said: Sign me up. And he 

was a ditch digger on the Baltimore 

sewer system. My great-grandmother 

married him because he was a man of 

prospects. We rebuilt Baltimore then. I 

wish to rebuild Baltimore today and 

put people to work, from designing and 

engineering, moving heavy lifting 

equipment. 

The Chesapeake Bay is polluted because we don’t have enough water in 

sewer treatment plants. That is one of 

the reasons. So we can build that by 

making public investments in physical 

infrastructure. By sending a dollar of 

taxpayer money today, we will have 

jobs today and economic recovery on 

the way. 

Also, I wished to talk about helping 

the automobile industry. My other colleagues will speak on the floor about 

the need for the $25 billion plan. My 

colleagues will also speak about other 

things to help Detroit for which I am 

supportive. But I also have another 

idea. See, the way I think, I am oldfashioned. My dad ran a grocery store. 

While others talk about the big macro 

picture, I learned economics at the 

macaroni-and-cheese level in my dad’s 

grocery store. It was about supply and 

demand. I am saying if we stimulate 

demand, which actually gets people to 

buy cars, people will have to make 

them. They will have to sell them. 

They will have to service them. They 

will have to provide the insurance and 

other services to do it. 

Let me tell you how I wish to save 

jobs in the automobile industry and at 

the same time help our consumers and 

get our economy back on track. It is 

simple. It is straightforward. It is bipartisan. I am joined in my framework, 

which I introduced as a freestanding 

bill, by Senator KIT BOND of Missouri. 

More cosponsors are pouring in. My 

provision simply says this: If you buy a 

new passenger car or light truck between November 12 of this year and December 31 of next year, you will get a 

tax deduction on your sales tax and on 

the interest of your loan. Let me repeat that. It is a tax deduction for the 

sales tax on buying that car or light 

truck. You will also be able to deduct 

the interest on your loan. For many 

people, depending on the size of the vehicle, it can go anywhere from $2,000 to 

$5,000. It saves jobs. Remember where I 

started. Not only extend unemployment benefits to those who have lost 

their jobs but extend employment so 

people don’t lose their jobs. 

One out of every ten jobs in America 

depends on the automobile industry. 

What is it I mean? First of all, in 

manufacturing—and we know what it 

feels like in Maryland. See this chart. 

On Broening Highway we made 

minivans for years. Now it is being 

cleared for who knows what. We know 

it has new uses but not like this. There 

were 1,000 jobs that paid good wages 

and good salaries. I do not want 

‘‘closed’’ signs up all over America. So 

it is jobs in manufacturing. 

Then there are jobs in car dealerships. Did you know there are 30,000 car 

dealerships in America, and each one 

employs about 50 or 60 people—from 

the people who sell the cars, service 

the cars, supply the parts, and the back 

office workers handling the bookkeeping and the accounting. 

In my own home State there are 300 

dealers. If you look at the dealers nationwide, we are talking about 150,000 

people. In my own State, it is over 

25,000 people. In many of my rural communities, outside the hospital and 

local government, they are the major 

employer. Dealers are at risk. The people who work at the dealerships are at 

risk. We can change that. 

Now, let me go to the rationale. Why 

now? Why the urgency? Well, first of 

all, car purchases, whether you are 

talking about a Toyota or a Taurus, 

whether you are talking about cars 

made in Detroit or made in Kentucky, 

Alabama or Tennessee or Texas, buying 

cars, with people going into the showrooms, is down by 25 percent. 

But what we also know from the auto 

research is that people buy more cars 

during the period of Thanksgiving to 

New Year’s Eve than any other 6-week 

period. If you pass the Mikulski-Bond 

amendment, and it is signed into law, 

and people come into the showroom, 

that is the time they want to buy cars, 

and this is the time we could give them 

the Federal incentive, along with the 

dealer and manufacturing incentives. 

It could mean tremendous help. 

Now, there are those who will say: 

Gee, how much does this cost, Senator 

MIKULSKI? It does cost $8 billion. However, the cost of doing nothing is phenomenal. The cost to the Government 

is about $50 billion a year if we do 

nothing, if our automobile system goes 

down. If we face the ‘‘Armageddon’’ of 

one of them going bankrupt, our pension guaranty system would be in great 

difficulty. We would lose taxes in unemployment benefits. In other words, 

there is a cost to doing nothing that is 

10 to 20 times greater than what we are 

talking about here. 

I know my time is about up. 

I say: Pass this stimulus package. 

Thanks to the leader, my auto provision is part of it. We need to talk about 

saving 3 million jobs in the automobile 

industry. We need to talk about how to 

help the American people. 

I conclude by saying, during the 

break I went around and talked to my 

constituents. First of all, they are mad 

as the dickens over the way this bailout package has been handled. They 

feel we gave it to the sharks and the 

whales on Wall Street, and the little 

guys—the minnows—got no help. What 

they are worried about is the losing of 

their jobs. In many instances, they 

have already lost their life savings, 

they have lost their homes or they are 

already in jeopardy. 

Let’s talk about a car dealer. I 

walked in to talk to a dealer in Montgomery County. The first thing was I 

noticed two things: an empty showroom and on his lapel he had a Rotary 

pin. This is a man for which that business, in Montgomery County, was 

started in 1939, during the Depression, 

because they believed in Roosevelt and 

they believed in the American economy. Can they believe in us? 

That man, with his Rotary pin and 

family, has provided jobs. They fix 

cars. They have sold cars and so on. 

They kept it going and at the same 

time contributed to the charities in 

their community, being a good corporate citizen. 

You talk to the people who work 

there. Let’s talk to the guy I talked to 

who has worked there for 23 years. He 

said: Senator Barb, all I have ever 

wanted to do is fix cars. I love fixing 

cars, and I have fixed Chevys and now 

Accords and Acuras, and I have done a 

great job. I have been happy, and I 

have made a lot of people happy. But I 

have two kids in college. I was told 

that for the kind of job I have, there is 

a workforce shortage. But now there is 

more of a shortage of work than a 

shortage of workers. 

This is whom we are fighting for. We 

are fighting for our friends. We are 

fighting for our neighbors. We are 

fighting for the people who have kept 

our communities going. So we come 

back to wonder: How are we going to 

spend money? We have already spent 

$350 billion that went to banks that do 

not care. They have no remorse. They 

have no sense of gratitude, and they 

did not regard us as an investor. Mr. 

President, $350 billion to banks and 

Paulson is walking around like a passive investor. But here, if we make this 

investment to enable the consumer to 

be in a new car, which will get more 

fuel efficiency, lower carbon emissions, 

and pick up our economy, I think we 

are doing something. 

I hope today we get a chance to vote 

on the economic recovery bill. It has 

major components in it, and one of the 

major component is it extends employment, which is what Americans want. 

On the day Barack Obama resigned 

from the Senate, let us now resign ourselves to follow what the mandate was 

on November 4. They not only gave 

President-elect Obama a mandate; they 

gave us a mandate: Get America rolling again. The Mikulski legislation 

puts our economy back on wheels. 

I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama. 

f 

WASTEFUL SPENDING 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I 

thank the Chair for the opportunity to 

speak. I appreciate the eloquent remarks of my colleague, Senator MIKULSKI. She is a passionate advocate for 

Middle America, and it is a pleasure to 

serve with her in the Senate. 

I have to say, it is a historic day that 

Senator Obama has resigned and will 

be on the road now to inauguration as 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10611 

the President of the United States. 

People are happy about it. For so many 

people, you can feel their excitement 

about the possibilities. The country 

wanted change, and we have some 

change out there. I think we need to 

ask ourselves pretty clearly what kind 

of change it is they were demanding of 

Congress. We may well have some disagreements about that. 

The day after the election, I was 

doing a little exercise at the park back 

home in Alabama, and I met an African-American with an Army hat on. He 

and his friends were talking happily, 

and there was an excitement about this 

election. He said: You know, this is the 

first time I know my sacrifice in Vietnam meant something. He was sincere 

about that. There is a good feeling out 

there. 

I would say that one of the things the 

American people did not vote for, however, was wasteful Washington spending. It is just not so. One of the things 

they rejected in the Bush administration was reckless spending, unprincipled spending. That is something that 

has worried them. So in interpreting 

the results of the election, I think we 

need to take care. 

I noticed a recent Rasmussen Poll 

showed that 80 percent of Americans 

think the Government is too involved 

in the economy, that the Government 

is getting its nose too much in this and 

taking their money they sent here and 

spending it on somebody the Government wants to favor with Federal largess. I do not think that is what the 

election meant: that we ought to spend 

more. 

Also, on the question of the bailout, 

less than one-third of the American 

people in the Rasmussen Poll said they 

favored an automobile company bailout. This is contrary to our fundamental principles. We may have to, at 

certain times, do things that are a violation of principle. We ought to be very 

cautious about doing so. These are 

things that have served this country 

well for over 200 years. We need to be 

careful about it. 

So I do not think the change people 

voted for was to authorize Congress to 

go on a wild spending spree, throwing 

money at every problem. We have already had, this year, a $150 billion 

stimulus that was supposed to ward off 

the recession—sending out checks to 

everybody, and this was going to fix it. 

I hated to vote against that, but I 

could not vote for that $150 billion, 

every penny of which went to the debt. 

We were already in deficit, so we added 

another $150 billion to the deficit in 

one fell swoop. What did we tell people 

to do? We told them to go out and 

spend. I know the Acting President pro 

tempore is from Nebraska. I know he 

was raised right. We have had a talk 

about families and how families work. 

When you have a financial problem, 

you do not tell your children to go out 

and see how much they can spend. You 

ask them to get smart about what they 

have been doing. 

When the economy goes into a recessionary period, people start watching 

their spending. They decide they do not 

eat out as much. They decide they cannot buy as fancy clothes. They decide 

they cannot afford a big, expensive 

house that has also been going up in 

price, and maybe it is not going up 

now, so they wisely decide to stay renting or stay in the house they have, 

which depresses the price of housing. 

This is the business cycle, I will just 

say. 

I feel like we work our way through 

that. As people get their debt paid 

down, they start buying more. In the 

meantime, certain companies get hurt. 

Companies that are selling big gas-guzzling vehicles and are committed to 

that product are going to be one of the 

groups that gets hit the hardest. I wish 

it were not so. I know this is not a 

matter of insignificance that domestic 

automobile companies are in financial 

trouble. But they have been promoting 

a product the American people do not 

want right now and they are committed to that product and it is troubling as to how we work our way out of 

it. But I think rewarding misbehavior 

is not the way to do it. 

So it is pretty clear now that we are 

in a recession and that credit had been 

too cheap in the years leading up to 

this. We had a bubble in housing. People thought prices would never go 

down, and they bought houses larger 

than they could afford, made payments 

that stressed them to the very limit to 

afford those big houses, pretty much on 

the theory that the housing prices were 

going to continue to go up and would 

never go down. Those of us who have 

been around a while should have known 

that is not a good way to go. We have 

known, and we have seen it in our very 

neighborhoods, the young couple buying huge automobiles, borrowing 

money to do so—$40,000, $50,000, 

$60,000—that they could not afford. It 

also guzzled fuel, cost them more at 

the pump, and each month they ran up 

debts on their credit card, including 

gasoline. When you get to the maximum limit, you have to cut back. 

So what do you do? You do not buy 

as many of these things, you do not add 

as much, you do not buy the big cars, 

some people cannot afford to hold on to 

their big houses, and you go through a 

recessionary period. It is not a matter 

we ought to treat lightly. I certainly 

recognize that. 

But as USA Today said a month or so 

ago, an economy founded on excessive 

personal debt, excessive Government 

debt, and huge trade deficits, is not 

sound. That is just it. We have to 

change our ways. We cannot buy our 

way out of this situation. There is no 

free lunch. For anything that somebody puts in front of you to eat, somebody has had to pay for it to get it 

there. Debts have to be repaid. We have 

to be honest about it. We cannot continue to throw money at this problem. 

We are going to have to take our lumps 

now and come out of it stronger rather 

than trying to postpone the problem, 

kicking the can down the road in some 

desperate attempt at stimulus to avoid 

any pain in a normal recessionary 

cycle. 

So I worry about it. Let me tell my 

colleagues about the deficit. The deficit surged after 9/11. We had increased 

spending at airports and we did all 

kinds of things and the deficit went up 

to almost $420 billion—one of the biggest deficits in dollar terms we have 

ever had, not as a percentage of GDP, 

but a huge deficit and a reversal of the 

situation prior to that. That deficit has 

gone down. A year ago September 30, 

our deficit for the year was $161 billion; 

still large, too large, but going in the 

right direction. As of September 30 of 

this year, after we popped $150 billion 

earlier this year directly into the deficit to fund the stimulus that was supposed to avoid a recession, now the deficit this year was $455 billion. And the 

one we are in today, I saw an article recently that said the deficit will clearly 

be in excess of $750 billion, the largest 

deficit in the history of our country 

and, probably, as a percentage of GDP, 

one of the largest we have ever had. 

Now we are talking about more spending, more spending, more, more, more; 

we have to bail out this industry, that 

industry, the other industry. 

Alabama was heavily reliant on textiles. Now, seventy percent of our textile industry is gone. You can go to 

town after town where sewing plants 

existed—no longer there. Should the 

Federal Government have stopped 

that? The little community in which I 

grew up, the original community was 

on the river where steamboats plied 

the river. After railroads came, the 

community sort of moved a few miles 

over to the railroad. That is where I 

grew up, in a little railroad community. Then the passenger trains 

stopped, and the freight trains stopped 

and people had interstates and other 

ways to communicate and travel and 

airplanes came along. Should we have 

passed—we had a railroad depot there, 

and my friend’s dad ran it. Well, it is 

closed. Should we have passed a law to 

keep the railroads just as they always 

were and all the depots out there? 

Years ago you remember the debate 

over whether the union should require 

a fireman, who used to shovel coal into 

the steam engines, to sit on a diesel 

train. That was part of the union contract. For decades after we ended 

steam engines, the union contracts required a person named a fireman to sit 

on a diesel train with the engineer. 

This is not sound. 

Change is inevitable. We have to adjust to it. That is what we need to do. 

Maybe there are ways we can help the 

automobile industry—I assume there 

are, and I would be prepared to discuss 

that—but we have to be realistic and 

honest. When we start throwing money 

at private corporations to save them 

from the forces that are at work in our 

economy, we are taking on a big challenge. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S10612 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

This is a metaphor I have in my 

mind. Do my colleagues remember the 

story of the folks who flew airplanes 

over the hurricanes and threw out dry 

ice and they believed if they could just 

throw out enough dry ice, they could 

stop the hurricane? Well, we can’t 

throw money into this financial hurricane and stop it either. We have to 

hunker down and do what we have always done to work through difficult financial circumstances. We can be sophisticated and come up with some 

good ideas that can help—and I am certainly for that—but I would tell my 

colleagues as a matter of principle we 

need to be very cautious about picking 

and choosing who we are going to reward with Federal taxpayer money. 

In a meeting yesterday, Secretary 

Paulson was quite correct. He said: 

Look, any time you take Federal 

money and insert it into the marketplace—and he was talking about the 

automobile industry and the banking 

industry at the time—you distort the 

market. You help some companies and 

industries and you hurt others. I would 

just add, you do so with taxpayer 

money, you are taking sides in the 

process. That is dangerous, and we 

need to be as careful about it as we 

possibly can. So I would just raise 

those points. 

Do my colleagues know our savings 

rate in America fell below zero at the 

height of this boom, at the height of 

this housing bubble, this automobile 

bubble? Gasoline prices were through 

the roof, commodity prices through the 

roof, farm prices surging, gold and 

other metals going up at incredible 

rates. They are all falling now, but during that time we didn’t have any savings. Our savings rates fell below zero. 

Now that we are going into a recessionary period—and we are in a recession—people are saving. The savings 

rate I saw recently was about 3 percent. So people are not consuming as 

much. Is that all bad? 

When people don’t consume as much 

and don’t travel as much, the hotels 

are not as full, the restaurants are not 

as full, the automobile companies can’t 

sell as many automobiles, and they are 

going through tough times. But when 

you have an excessive boom, this is the 

kind of thing that is bound to happen. 

One observer of the scene made this 

comment in 2006 about the housing 

market. He said: 

Housing prices cannot continue to increase 

at twice the rate of the growth of GDP, and 

they cannot continue to increase at this rate 

when wages are basically flat. 

Now, doesn’t that make sense? Didn’t 

we know people who couldn’t afford a 

house because the prices were outrageous? There are some benefits from 

the collapse and the boom on housing 

prices. An average person now may be 

able to buy a house at a more reasonable price than they were before. So 

these are the cycles we go through. 

The timber industry in my State depends on home building. When construction is down, our saw mills are 

shutting down in small towns, and that 

is the only business they have. Are we 

going to bail out the saw mills today? 

Is anybody proposing that? Then, the 

people who work in the woods to harvest the timber—good, honest, hardworking Americans—if the saw mills 

can’t buy the lumber—are they getting 

an hourly wage? Are they being laid 

off? Yes, they are, as part of this tough 

cycle that we are going through. 

I wish to ask this fundamental question: Who is going to bail out the 

American Government? Who is going 

to bail out the American taxpayers for 

the expenditures that we are increasing? I ask this: Isn’t it true there are 

three basic ways to deal with money 

we are borrowing today, perhaps $1 

trillion this fiscal year? When I say 

$750 billion to $1 trillion, I am not 

counting the $700 billion bailout. That 

has not been scored yet. I am talking 

about other spending, including some 

of these bailout proposals. 

So there are three ways we could do 

it. We could cut spending. Our Democratic colleagues were pretty hard on 

Republicans for, they said, spending 

too much, and they were right more 

than I would like to admit. I would just 

say this: Are we getting any better 

now? The talk we are hearing today, is 

it spend more, more, more, more, or is 

it a discussion about a contained 

spending? No. What we are hearing 

from the change group, I am afraid, is 

spend more. 

Well, that is one way to pay off your 

debts. Another way would be to raise 

taxes. None of us want to see taxes 

raised, for heaven’s sake, especially not 

in a time of economic slowdown, so 

taxes is not a likely way to pay off the 

debt. 

What has happened throughout history? Fundamentally, the way debts 

are paid off is by debasing the currency. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

CARDIN). The Senator’s time has expired. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Is that 10 minutes, I 

believe? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I 

would ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Hearing no objection, the 

Senator is recognized. 

Mr. SESSIONS. So I am afraid of inflating the currency, reducing the 

value of currency so that when the government has to pay back debts, it pays 

back in dollars less valuable than the 

ones it borrowed, and we basically 

cheat the people who loaned money. 

When that happens, they are going to 

demand a higher rate of interest on the 

trillions of dollars of debt we have 

today. 

Let me briefly share with my colleagues some thoughts about the bailout and why I cannot support the plan 

that is being proposed and offered by 

Senator REID, the Democratic leader. I 

commend to my colleagues the article 

by Michael E. Levine entitled, ‘‘Why 

Bankruptcy Is The Best Option For 

GM.’’ He is a former airline executive 

and is a distinguished research scholar 

and senior lecturer at NYU School of 

Law. He just points out this fact—and 

as a lawyer, I think he is absolutely 

correct. Regarding contracts and ways 

that would really reform and streamline and make these companies competitive, he said this: 

Contracts would have to be bought out. 

The company would have to shed many of its 

fixed obligations. Some obligations will be 

impossible to cut by voluntary agreement. 

Why would somebody agree to have 

you not pay them what you have been 

paying? 

Then he said: ‘‘GM will run out of 

cash and out of time.’’ That is even if 

we give them $25 billion. They cannot 

fix themselves until they confront 

their costs that are pulling them down. 

Mitt Romney, whose father was a 

CEO at American Motors, in his recent 

op-ed estimates that the average American automobile is carrying a $2,000- 

per-car excess cost. If you wonder why 

foreign automobiles are better, it is because they can put 2,000 more dollars in 

it. So how do you get out of that? You 

have to get out of these contracts. 

Mr. Levine fundamentally points out that 

through the process of reorganization—not 

chapter VII liquidation but the process that 

Delta Airlines used to reorganize itself—is 

the one way you can get out of these contracts and restructure the company, reduce 

some of its burdens, and come back again as 

a fighting, competitive company, producing 

automobiles that people will buy in large 

numbers. I think that is very possible. 

So in bankruptcy, those kinds of 

things can occur that can occur outside. Mitt Romney, in his editorial, 

said: 

A managed bankruptcy may be the only 

path to the fundamental restructuring the 

industry needs. It would permit the company 

to shed excess labor, pension, and real estate 

costs. The Federal Government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. 

Now, those are the kinds of suggestions that come close to making sense 

to me. 

He talked about his father, George 

Romney, the Governor of Michigan, 

who also ran for President at one 

point. This is what he said his father 

did when he saved American Motors at 

the time: 

My dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock at his company— 

To show faith in it— 

and he went out to the factories to talk to 

workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the 

executive dining rooms—all the symbols that 

breed resentment among the hundreds of 

thousands who will also be sacrificing to 

keep the companies afloat. 

I think that is the right way to do it. 

I think we can do that. I really would 

urge my colleagues to look for ways for 

this to happen. 

Now, you cannot trust the automobile dealers when they come forward 

and say: Well, we are doing all of these 

things. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10613 

They don’t have the power to do 

these things. I know they don’t want to 

go into reorganization and bankruptcy 

as Delta Airlines did. But it is not 

going to be a horrible thing. Delta 

went in and emerged about a year and 

a half later. They reorganized, reduced 

expenses, altered and amended contracts and obligations, and they recently bought Northwest. They went 

bankrupt in 2005, and they came out 

leaner and more competitive and are 

now a viable company. But these 

CEOs—if you give them money, they 

are going to have less leverage with the 

unions, less leverage with their 7,000 

automobile dealers, when Toyota has 

1,500 automobile dealers. They are 

going to have less leverage with the 

lease agreements and health care 

agreements they entered into years 

ago, in a different situation, to deal 

with people’s health care requests and 

demands at that time. They are stuck 

with that until they can break loose 

from it. 

A bankruptcy judge whose motive 

would be to help them become leaner 

and more effective and sends them out 

as a viable entity so that jobs are saved 

and debts are fundamentally repaid— 

that would be the goal of reorganization and bankruptcy. I don’t think we 

ought to be putting a lot of money into 

this company until we see it in a position that would actually break the 

chains of $2,000 per car that is slowing 

them down, actually pulling them 

down hopelessly. 

I thank the Chair for the opportunity 

to share some of my thoughts. I believe 

when we violate the principles of intervening in the free market and picking 

winners and losers, we are taking a 

great risk. If we do so, it ought to be 

done with the greatest of care, the 

least exposure to the taxpayer, and 

with the greatest potential for creating 

a successful company in the end. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized. 

f 

THE LIFE OF DR. RANDY PAUSCH 

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise 

today to honor the life of Dr. Randy 

Pausch, who died this past July 25 from 

pancreatic cancer. Dr. Pausch was a 

rare hero who rose above his illness 

and fought to the end for increased 

public awareness of this devastating 

illness. In doing so, Dr. Pausch captured the attention of the country, inspiring people with his extraordinary 

grace, courage, and love of life. 

Dr. Pausch was a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, 

in my home State of Pennsylvania. He 

was an accomplished researcher and 

dedicated teacher. 

Many people know what Randy did 

because of his famous ‘‘Last Lecture,’’ 

which he delivered at Carnegie Mellon 

in September of last year. The video of 

the lecture became an inspirational 

phenomenon on the Internet. Literally 

millions of Americans wrote and 

blogged about the transformational impact Dr. Pausch’s lecture had upon 

them and their lives. Recently, ‘‘The 

Last Lecture’’ was turned into a bestselling book. 

The lessons from Dr. Pausch that 

have inspired so many people are simple, but ones we all too easily can forget. He reminds us about achieving 

childhood dreams and maintaining a 

sense of childhood wonder. He also encourages his listeners to work hard, 

tell the truth, be earnest, help others, 

apologize for mistakes, listen to advice, and never, ever give up. He helps 

us remember how important it is to 

simply enjoy life and that each day is 

a gift. 

As his disease progressed, Dr. Pausch 

was also an impassioned advocate for 

pancreatic cancer research. He testified before the House Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 

Human Services, and Education, saying: 

We don’t have advocates for this disease 

because they don’t live long enough. We 

don’t have a Michael J. Fox because people 

die too fast. Pancreatic cancer is absolutely 

ruthless. Part of my job is to put a face on 

the disease. 

So said Dr. Pausch so poignantly 

about this disease, because indeed pancreatic cancer is ruthless. It is the 

fourth leading cause of cancer death in 

the United States of America. Seventyfive percent of pancreatic cancer patients die within 1 year of diagnosis. 

The 5-year survival rate is barely 5 percent. The survival rate for pancreatic 

cancer today is the same as it was 30 

years ago. 

Randy was only 45 when he died of 

pancreatic cancer on July 25 of this 

year. He left behind his wife Jai and 

their three children, Dylan, Logan, and 

Chloe. 

Dr. Randy Pausch lived life to the 

fullest in every sense of that word, in 

every sense of that phrase. He was a 

loving husband and father, a dedicated 

educator, and an impassioned advocate. 

While his life was cut short by pancreatic cancer, his legacy for living is 

one we should all cherish. I ask my 

Senate colleagues to join me in commemorating the life of Dr. Pausch with 

the resolution that I and others have 

introduced. This resolution calls upon 

communities across this country to 

recognize November as National Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, and 

urges greater public awareness and resources for prevention, early detection, 

and treatment of this disease. 

Let us, with this resolution, recognize the extraordinary gift that Dr. 

Pausch’s life was to humanity and 

strive to make progress with this deadly, ruthless disease. 

I commend Senator CLINTON for her 

leadership on this issue and for introducing this resolution. I am joined as a 

cosponsor by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator SPECTER. For their 

help, we are greatly appreciative. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized. 

TRIBUTE TO RETIRING SENATORS 

PETE DOMENICI

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the 

110th Congress draws to a close, I rise 

to say thanks and farewell to one of 

our hardest working and most dedicated Members, Senator PETE DOMENICI

of New Mexico. 

PETE DOMENICI’s story is truly the 

American dream come to life. The son 

of immigrants, PETE worked in the 

family grocery business, earned a college degree, taught school, obtained a 

law degree, and served in local government before his election to the Senate. 

I cannot overlook one vitally important part of his biography, and that is 

his stint as a pitcher for a farm team of 

the old Brooklyn Dodgers. Who knows 

how much different history would be if 

his fast ball had had a little more 

‘‘pop’’ to it? 

For 36 years, however, baseball’s loss 

has been the Senate’s gain. The character developed by athletic competition—determination, hard work, a 

sense of fair play—is fully evident in 

PETE’s six terms in office. 

When the people of New Mexico chose 

PETE DOMENICI to be the longest serving Senator in their State’s history, 

they chose wisely. His tireless work on 

a wide range of issues has helped to ensure a better future for all Americans, 

rural or urban, large State or small. He 

is a respected leader on some of the 

most important challenges of our time, 

such as strengthening energy security, 

curbing nuclear proliferation, and promoting sound Federal budget policy. 

PETE’s understanding of the budget 

process is matched only by his appreciation of the critical role fiscal responsibility plays. His service on the 

Budget Committee established his universal reputation as one of the Senate’s 

hardest working, most intelligent, and 

best-informed Members. His focus on 

results rather than the limelight led 

one colleague to describe him as having ‘‘a terminal case of responsibility.’’ 

Senator DOMENICI is also a true 

champion for biomedical research, and 

especially for Americans suffering from 

mental illness. He has worked unceasingly over the years to increase the understanding and to eliminate the stigma associated with mental illness. He 

has led the effort in the Senate—first 

in partnership with Senator Paul 

Wellstone, and later with our colleague 

Senator TED KENNEDY, to pass legislation that requires insurers to cover 

mental illness in the same way they 

cover physical illnesses. 

Thankfully, those efforts have finally 

borne fruit with the inclusion of his 

legislation in the economic stimulus 

bill, the stabilization bill passed in the 

Senate. It is a victory not just for Senator DOMENICI’s longstanding efforts 

but also for the estimated 50 million 

Americans who suffer from some kind 

of mental illness. It is a testament to 

his dedication and his compassion. 

Senator DOMENICI’s tenure has been 

marked by vision, common sense, and a 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE