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 The motion is withdrawn.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