S10626 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

on in the House and, actually, what is 

going on here. But I will confer with 

my counterpart, Senator MCCONNELL, 

and we will do what we can to move 

forward. 

f 

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUESTS 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that we move forward on this bill, S. 3689—there is a 

provision in that dealing with what we 

call FMAP—that the FMAP provision 

be taken out, that it be considered as 

separate legislation, be read three 

times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and there be 

no intervening action or debate. 

The reason that is so very important 

is that FMAP is something that every 

State—every State, all 50—is in desperate need of. No part of our country 

has proven immune from our economic 

struggles. We are all sharing the heavy 

burden of these difficult times. But few 

places are suffering, though, more than 

we are in Nevada. 

Budget shortfalls in Nevada are causing deep cuts in bedrock programs the 

Government must provide, programs 

that help and protect children, senior 

citizens, and people with disabilities. 

The State of Nevada has been forced 

to cap enrollment in Nevada Check-Up, 

our form of children’s health insurance. The State recently had to institute cuts to provider reimbursement. 

What is worse, these cuts will not end 

here unless we act to provide fiscal relief by increasing the Federal Medical 

Assistance Percentage; that is, FMAP. 

What are the consequences of inaction? It was reported in the media this 

weekend that due to the provider rate 

cut, University Medical Center in Las 

Vegas, our public hospital, is discontinuing outpatient cancer treatment. And that is not just for Medicaid 

patients, it is for all patients. It is not 

clear if all those patients will be able 

to afford chemotherapy elsewhere, but 

it is pretty clear they will not be able 

to. 

Low-income children who need orthopedic treatment will have to leave Las 

Vegas altogether for services elsewhere. They will likely have to leave 

the State. 

There is more to come. The cuts are 

not over. This is the way it is in many 

States around the country. The budget 

shortfalls are deep. When States have 

to cut provider reimbursement for 

some of the things I have outlined, 

they have real difficulties in making 

the safety net not be one that has big 

holes in it. States have found no choice 

but to look at cutting services such as 

mental health and cutting actual people from the program, adding to the 

ranks of the insured at the worst possible time. 

We have been working in the Senate 

to provide help. The stimulus bill we 

introduced includes a temporary 8-percent FMAP increase to stave off these 

cuts. It will not fix the problem, but it 

may make a difference in ensuring that 

our children are not without the care 

they need. I hope we can take that 

step. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

reserving the right to object, this is a 

spending measure of $37.8 billion which 

has not been considered by the Finance 

Committee. We should be asking the 

States to pay it back. We should require the States to agree to not raise 

taxes. For all of those reasons, Madam 

President, I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I have 

one final consent request on which I 

would like to move forward. This is the 

matter dealing with automobiles. We 

know the issue before this body. There 

have been speeches given the last several days about where the automobile 

industry is. We have watched on national TV the congressional hearings 

that have taken place on this side of 

the Capitol and on the other side of the 

Capitol. We need to try to figure out 

some way to move forward. 

We believe the best way to move forward is taking the money, as I have indicated, out of the so-called TARP 

money. I do not believe we need the 

legislation. I think—well, I don’t know. 

I have talked to Secretary Paulson 

twice today. He knows he has authority to take money out of that; he just 

does not want to do it. 

So I ask unanimous consent that the 

Senate proceed to the consideration of 

a bill I have at the desk, which is the 

text of title VI of S. 3689 regarding 

automotive industry assistance; that 

the bill be read a third time and 

passed, the motion to reconsider be 

laid on the table, and there be no intervening action or debate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. KYL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the longer this 

legislation has been lying around, the 

more objections have been heard to it. 

So, yes, I do object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

The Senator from Missouri. 

Mr. BOND. Madam President, the distinguished majority leader was kind 

enough to mention the fact that several of us on our side have been working with leading Members on his side of 

the aisle to come up with a compromise proposal that would come to 

the aid of the auto companies which 

are facing a very serious situation, 

without mentioning specific ones or 

others, but to say this is a critical time 

to move to prevent perhaps the bankruptcy or the disappearance of a major 

auto company, which would cause 

chaos in our country. Over 3 million 

jobs are related to the auto industry— 

from the auto assembly plants, to the 

auto dealerships, to the parts suppliers. 

So we have been working on a bipartisan basis. On my side of the aisle, 

Senator VOINOVICH and I have been 

working with others on the Democratic 

side. We took the basic construct of the 

measure the majority leader had introduced. We took the money out of a previously passed bill, which would not 

cause as much concern down Pennsylvania Avenue, and we provide that the 

money will go back into that program 

as it is returned. 

In my view, it is essential we work 

something out. I will tell the majority 

leader we have made great progress. We 

are down to the point now where wording challenges are about the only remaining things to deal with. I strongly 

believe it is in the interest of the country, particularly all of those families 

whose jobs depend upon the auto industry, and the States, the local governments, and the Federal Government to 

move something forward. 

So I ask unanimous consent that at a 

time to be determined on Thursday, 

November 20, the Senate proceed to the 

immediate consideration of a bill to be 

introduced by Senators BOND and 

VOINOVICH and others; I further ask 

that there be no amendments in order, 

with 2 hours of debate equally divided, 

and following the use or yielding back 

of the time, the bill be read a third 

time and the Senate proceed to a vote 

on passage, and that if there are not 60 

votes in the affirmative, the bill be 

placed on the Senate calendar. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, we have had no 

hearings. We have no text. I know my 

friend, Senator BOND, is a man of faith. 

I think I am too. But this is carrying it 

a little too far. We do not know anything about this. I look forward to a 

piece of legislation we can look at. 

Hopefully, it can be done tonight or tomorrow, and we will be happy to look 

at it. 

I have had many conversations today 

and yesterday with the senior Senator 

from the State of Kentucky, Mr. 

MCCONNELL, and we understand the importance of this issue. We will try to 

work to move forward on it. But I want 

everyone to understand, no matter how 

hard we work, how hard we try, the 

House of Representatives is going home 

tomorrow. OK. They are leaving. 

I understand the importance. But I 

would hope that in addition to understanding the importance, we have to 

face reality. The reality is, we have 

tried a number of different approaches. 

I will be happy to look at the approach my friend from Missouri has. He 

is a hard-working Senator. I understand how hard he works. He is a real 

advocate for doing what he thinks is 

appropriate for his State and our country. 

Senator LEVIN and I have had hours 

of conversation regarding this issue. 

Every conversation I have with him he 

mentions the name of the Senator from 

Missouri. So I understand what this is 

all about, but, recognizing we have had 

no hearings, we have no legislation, I 

object. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10627 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

f 

CONCLUSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that morning business be closed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Morning business is closed. 

f 

ADVANCING AMERICA’S PRIORITIES ACT—MOTION TO PROCEED 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to 

proceed to S. 3297. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask 

permission to withdraw the motion to 

proceed to S. 3297. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn. 

f 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

EXTENSION ACT OF 2008—MOTION 

TO PROCEED 

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. REID. Madam President, I now 

move to proceed to Calendar No. 1123, 

H.R. 6867, an act to provide for additional emergency unemployment compensation and, with that, I send a cloture motion to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented 

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the 

clerk to read the motion. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the motion to 

proceed to Calendar No. 1123, H.R. 6867, the 

Unemployment Compensation Extension Act 

of 2008. 

Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Patrick J. 

Leahy, Bernard Sanders, Kent Conrad, 

E. Benjamin Nelson, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Dianne Feinstein, Robert P. 

Casey, Jr., Patty Murray, Richard Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A. 

Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Carl Levin, 

Daniel K. Akaka, Mark L. Pryor. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII 

be waived. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate the patience of all my colleagues. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

I would ask my friend, the majority 

leader, now, if consent is not granted, 

this vote would be on Friday? 

Mr. REID. That is right. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

I say to my friend, I will be working on 

my side to see if it is possible to move 

that vote forward to tomorrow. Hopefully, he will be doing the same. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I certainly think it would be appropriate if 

we can do that. I will do everything I 

can to move this forward. 

I again say, Madam President, I appreciate the patience of everyone 

today. A lot of times we do not spend a 

lot of time here, but it is hard getting 

here. I appreciate it very much. And we 

were interrupted by the President of 

Bolivia. 

I should say—and I am sorry I did not 

to my friend, Senator MCCONNELL—if 

we do get cloture, then we could even 

do that, have a 60-vote threshold on 

that. And if that were done, we would 

be out of here as far as I know. So we 

will work together to see what we can 

get done. We will work to see what we 

can get done in the next 12 hours. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AUTO MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY BAILOUT

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to 

speak on the pending discussion and 

debate in the Senate about subsidies to 

the auto manufacturers and whether 

passing a large bailout subsidy package 

for the auto manufacturers is a good 

idea. Earlier this afternoon I objected 

to a unanimous consent request by 

Senator MIKULSKI and she responded to 

that objection by noting that she certainly hoped that objecting to a bailout package for auto manufacturers 

wasn’t the last thing I did in the Senate, given that my term is going to be 

expiring and I am going to be retiring 

from the Senate. Well, it won’t be the 

last thing I do. If nothing else, the last 

thing I will do is to explain why her 

legislation was such a terrible idea to 

the people of New Hampshire who 

elected me and to the American people 

whom I think I have an obligation to 

serve in making sure that their interests are protected, that their wallets 

are protected, and that we act with a 

commitment to fiscal responsibility. 

We don’t need to be providing subsidies, special benefits or protection to 

individual businesses, whether they are 

auto manufacturers or any other business. This is wrong for a large number 

of reasons. To be sure, no one is happy 

about the fact that our country is in a 

recession, that Europe is in a recession, 

that we have a global slowdown that 

will affect hundreds of thousands, if 

not millions, of lives across the United 

States and across the world. But by 

providing subsidies to the auto manufacturers, we do several things that are 

fundamentally wrong—bad for our 

economy, bad for taxpayers, bad for 

consumers. 

First, quite frankly, we reward bad 

decisions that have been made by these 

firms themselves. The problems within 

the auto industry are largely the making of those in the auto industry: management choices, production of models 

that consumers choose not to buy, legacy costs, contracts, health care, pensions. We all understand that within 

the economic slowdown there has been 

a significant drop in the number of cars 

being manufactured, but these businesses were losing money well before 

the current downturn. By stepping forward now to provide them with $25 billion or $50 billion, depending on which 

piece of legislation we would be considering and voting on, we, quite frankly, 

would be taking money from taxpayers 

across the country and rewarding those 

poor decisions that have been made by 

the manufacturers themselves. 

Second, this would set a bad precedent. There are many businesses across 

America that are dealing with tough 

times, a slowdown in their growth 

prospects. They have had to deal with 

layoffs. They have seen a significant 

slowdown in construction spending or 

consumer spending. It is affecting 

every corner of our economy. If we set 

the precedent of stepping forward with 

$25 billion in subsidies for auto manufacturers, every other business and industry in America would be looking for 

the same kind of treatment from the 

Federal Government. That is simply 

not in the taxpayers’ interests. It is 

certainly not fair to the average taxpayer. It is not fair to those taxpayers 

who work for companies that won’t get 

that kind of special treatment. Any 

time the Federal Government starts 

putting a significant amount of resources—$1 billion, $10 billion, $25 billion—into a particular firm or industry 

we distort the marketplace. So we 

would be rewarding bad decisions. We 

would be setting a bad precedent. 

Finally, we would be placing taxpayers at even greater risk. We need to 

be honest about the impact of giving 

$25 billion to the auto manufacturers 

in order to sustain their unprofitable 

operations. Many observers have suggested that $25 billion isn’t nearly 

enough, $50 billion probably isn’t 

enough to stave off bankruptcy. So 

when these firms ultimately did have 

to file for bankruptcy or when the 

losses mounted over the next 6 months 

or 12 months or 18 months and the 

firms needed additional capital, where 

would they turn? Back to the taxpayer. 

So the expectation would be—and I 

think the likelihood would be—that 

the $25 billion or $50 billion provided 

today would simply be a downpayment 

on even greater losses and greater exposure to the taxpayers in the future. 

Now, the proponents of this legislation have said a number of things. 

First and foremost, they have talked 

about the number of jobs that would be 

affected. No one relishes the idea of 

higher unemployment and job losses 

that have already begun in this current 

recession. But there are many businesses and industries across America 

that employ hundreds of thousands of 

people, that employ even more than 

the auto manufacturing segment. The 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE