S10792 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 8, 2008 

problems and lack of resources. Clearly, a more aggressive, comprehensive, 

and smarter approach to the foreclosure crisis must be taken if we are 

to recover from the recession. 

The housing crisis has now spread 

from subprime mortgages to prime 

mortgages as economic factors impact 

borrowers’ ability to pay their mortgages. Due to expansion of the mortgage crisis, it is critical that we find 

measures to protect and create jobs. 

The importance of jobs and its impact 

on the housing crisis further raises the 

importance of devising a responsible 

rescue package for the auto industry 

since millions of jobs are at risk—over 

3 million jobs in the Nation, 220,000 

jobs in Missouri. 

TARP has also disappointed me by 

the ad hoc implementation of the program. Prior to the creation of TARP, 

the Department seemed to be improvising on a daily basis its intervention 

with financial markets. One of our intents in creating TARP was to provide 

a structure and coherency to the Government’s approach to the financial 

crisis. That we have not seen. Before 

this and the next administration submit a request for the remaining TARP 

funds, we expect to have answers to the 

questions and issues raised by the GAO 

and others. The Government needs to 

provide more certainty on how it will 

address the financial and economic crisis and provide answers to taxpayers on 

how it has spent taxpayers funds already provided. 

These are very serious times. I want 

to see action by this Congress. I want 

to see us move quickly. But I also want 

to see action by the auto industry to 

advise the czar or the Secretary of 

Commerce, and I want to see action by 

the Treasury to give us a better idea of 

how TARP funds are being used, how 

they will be accounted for, how they 

are going to be implemented, and how 

they are going to be used. If they don’t 

have an approach, I will come forward 

with a suggestion on how we restructure those home loans that are in crisis. 

I ask unanimous consent that Senator BROWNBACK be added as a cosponsor to S. 3715, the Auto Industry Emergency Bridge Loan Act. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. BOND. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I arrived at the same time as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, 

and I ask unanimous consent that he 

be recognized following my brief presentation. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ECONOMIC AID TO AUTO 

INDUSTRY 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have 

sought recognition to discuss the issue 

as to what Congress should do, if anything, with respect to economic aid to 

General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. 

This is an issue which has been very 

much in the news, with the prospect 

that one or more of these companies 

might not survive—probably would not 

survive—in the absence of some aid 

from the U.S. Government. 

Last Tuesday, I convened a meeting 

in Philadelphia attended by key executives from each of the Big Three, labor 

leaders, the head of the Pennsylvania 

AFL–CIO, the head of the Pennsylvania 

United Auto Workers Community Action Program, and the head of the 

Philadelphia Labor Council. Also in attendance were dealers, suppliers, and 

economists to review the situation, to 

get a background, to understand it better, to provide for the consideration 

this week of the issue which will be before the Senate. 

At that meeting, the Big Three 

painted a very gloomy picture. Ford 

was in the best position of the three, 

having arranged credit some time ago, 

and they had a request pending for 

some $9 billion in standby aid. They 

were not asking for it, but only want it 

available in case their situation came 

to the point where they actively needed it in order to survive. The CEO of 

Ford said that if the $9 billion was requested and received, he would then 

serve for a dollar a year. 

The projections from General Motors 

and Chrysler were considerably gloomier than Ford, with the statements 

made that if they did not get aid by the 

end of the year, they might have to go 

into bankruptcy, or to Chapter 11 

bankruptcy proceedings. The suppliers 

were very concerned about the impact 

on their situation. The auto dealers 

were similarly concerned. Labor is very 

worried about the loss of jobs. So it 

was a very gloomy meeting overall. 

On Thursday, I convened a meeting 

in the Lehigh Valley. We did not have 

representatives of the Big Three, but 

we did have labor locally, dealers, 

bankers, economists who evaluated 

that situation. I joined with Senators 

LEVIN, STABENOW, BOND, VOINOVICH, 

and BROWN on November 20 in endorsing legislation to assist the Big Three, 

to say that it is something I would be 

willing to consider in light of the projected difficulties and the ripple effect 

it could have on the economy. 

My statement in the news conference 

which we held and a statement on the 

Senate floor was that my view was limited to consideration of such economic 

aid conditioned on the Big Three having plans to move forward which would 

present the realistic likelihood that 

they would be able to succeed. Considerable attention was given in the meetings which I held last week in Pennsylvania to the alternative of bankruptcy, 

and there have been many who have 

said bankruptcy would be the appropriate course as bankruptcy proceedings were held with the steel industry and the airlines, and that was 

the way to resolve the issue if the Big 

Three could not survive. One point 

which all of the Big Three agreed upon 

was that if one failed, they were all 

going to fail. 

The considerations with respect to 

bankruptcy which were considered at 

the two meetings I held were the contention that bankruptcy would be unacceptable to have the survival or having the Big Three come out of bankruptcy because of the difference between the automobile manufacturer 

situation contrasted with the steel industry or with the airlines. When buyers are looking for a car or looking for 

a warranty, they expect the companies 

to be in existence for protracted periods of time, so that the argument was 

made that Chapter 11 proceedings or 

bankruptcy generally would not be acceptable. 

I commented at these meetings, as I 

did on the Senate floor and in the news 

conference which the six Senators had 

on November 20, that the public sentiment is very much opposed to bailouts. 

After the $700 billion legislation was 

passed on October 3, I traveled the 

State of Pennsylvania and had town 

meetings. I found the temperature of 

my constituents was at the boiling 

point, 212 Fahrenheit, and, in fact, the 

thermometers were broken. I commented to the town meeting attendees 

that the vote which was taken in the 

Senate was a strong vote—74 to 25— 

which was a very strong vote, because 

of the potentially catastrophic consequences of what would happen to the 

economy. We didn’t like the bailout of 

Bear Stearns or the bailout of AIG, and 

Lehman Brothers was not bailed out, 

and there were major regulatory problems which would be addressed by the 

Congress. Those who had made false 

representations on the balance sheets 

saying that the companies were worth 

falsified figures, knowing them to be 

false—that is fraud—and there were investigations, criminal investigations 

underway, and that as in the Enron situation, people could go to jail for making those false representations. But I 

make that comment because of the 

public view which is opposed to the socalled bailouts; that it ought not to be 

the Government which picks winners 

and losers, but it ought to be the market which picks winners and losers. I 

repeat what I have said in prior floor 

statements which is that the Big Three 

have a very steep burden of proof and 

that the Big Three will have to come 

up with a plan which is reasonably and 

realistically calculated to succeed. We 

are now talking about various oversight provisions, talking about limited 

compensation, golden parachute plans 

which will make the Big Three competitive in a very difficult market, and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
December 8, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10793 

taking a look at the drastic reduction 

of automobile sales. But one factor 

came through loudly and clearly, and 

that was the potential consequences if 

the automotive industry—the Big 

Three—collapse, that we would be 

without the major portion of the industrial base in the United States, which 

as we all know in time of national 

emergency, in time of war, is indispensable for the defense of our country. 

So my staff and I and my colleagues 

are all taking a very close look at the 

proposals which the Big Three have 

made. I had a request to meet with 

General Motors and we will be doing 

that tomorrow. We are talking to a lot 

of people who were totally opposed to 

economic aid from the Federal Government. So we have to weigh the consequences as to what happens if economic aid is not given. It is hard to 

calculate what the consequences will 

be on the economy, but some of the 

predictions are virtually catastrophic. 

We must weigh that against the likelihood of the success of the plans, and it 

all depends on the quality of those 

plans. 

I thank the Chair. I know Senator 

DORGAN is close at hand, but in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a 

quorum. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the role. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senator 

from New Mexico be recognized for 1 

minute, I believe, and following which 

I would be recognized. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from New Mexico is recognized. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I 

thank my colleague. 

f 

REMEMBERING ALICE MARTIN 

KING 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Last night, Alice 

King, one of New Mexico’s most respected and best loved citizens, died as 

a result of a stroke. This is a tremendous loss to our State, and certainly to 

her husband, former Governor Bruce 

King, and her sons Bill and Gary and 

all of the family. 

Anyone who has lived in New Mexico 

for any amount of time in recent decades has actually felt they were a part 

of the King family in a way. Republicans and Democrats alike, ranchers 

or lawyers or pipefitters or schoolchildren, the Kings knew virtually everyone in our State, and nearly everyone in the State felt they knew the 

Kings. Certainly our State has benefited from the decades of public service 

the many members of the family have 

given, led by Bruce and Alice. He was 

the Governor of our State three times 

in three different decades and by his 

side always was his partner Alice. He 

was at her side last night. 

She was always more than just the 

Governor’s wife. She was a leader in 

our State on children’s issues. She was 

the force behind the creation of a cabinet level department, the Department 

of Children, Youth and Families. A vigorous, tireless, undaunted advocate for 

children, she lifted them and their 

issues to the top of our State’s list of 

priorities, and she was their champion. 

New Mexico has lost an invaluable 

citizen, one whose accomplishments 

are part of our history and part of our 

future. She was a great person, a great 

friend to many people, including my 

wife Anne and me. We join the King 

family in grieving the loss of this wonderful woman and remembering her 

with appreciation and love. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

f 

EXTENSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 

minutes each. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning 

business for 20 minutes. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY LOAN 

BAILOUT 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this 

week there will be a lot of discussion 

on the floor of the Senate about a 

bridge loan to the automobile industry 

in this country. I wish to speak about 

a bit of it here. It is quite clear that 

this country faces very serious financial problems—perhaps the most serious in my lifetime. We know that 

thoughtful leadership can help move 

this country past these problems and 

to address these problems, but they indeed are very serious. 

Here is a description of the jobs that 

have been lost since the first of this 

year. Nearly 2 million private sector 

jobs have been lost this year. 

This is kind of sanitary and doesn’t 

mean so much in terms of numbers. 

But every one of those nearly 2 million 

people had to go home this year to tell 

a loved one or their family that they 

didn’t have a job any longer. A job is 

what makes much of the other things 

that are good in our life possible. Nearly 2 million have lost jobs. 

Most Americans who have some sort 

of retirement savings, whether it is a 

401(k) or an IRA, if they have looked— 

and some have not—they have discovered that 30 to 40 percent of that is now 

gone, washed away by a serious financial crisis. Millions of people have lost 

their homes and millions more will unless something is done. It is one thing 

to lose a home, it is another thing to 

lose a job; but to lose a job and a home 

is a devastating blow to the American 

family. This is more than some sort of 

normal contraction of the business 

cycle. 

I have said before that I taught economics in college. When you teach economics, you teach about the business 

cycle. There is a contraction phase and 

an expansion phase of the business 

cycle. 

This is not a recession that is a result of a contraction phase of the business cycle. This is something very different. This is a financial collapse, a financial crisis. This is manmade. This is 

not some force of nature that is visited 

upon a population. This is a result of 

reckless business practices by some of 

the largest financial firms in this country. 

Unfortunately, instead of dealing 

with the cause, there is much effort 

now to throw money at the biggest 

firms in the country that helped steer 

our economy into the ditch. I am not 

suggesting there is not a requirement 

to make a very significant investment 

in portions of the economy to try to 

provide buoyancy and some lift to steer 

this country out of the recession. But 

there is an old country saying that the 

water won’t clear up until you get the 

hogs out of the creek. What I see day 

after day is the movement of money to 

the very interests that steered this 

country into the ditch and caused the 

wreck in the first place. 

This morning, I read in the Wall 

Street Journal about the CEO of Merrill Lynch, who is suggesting to the directors that he get a 2008 bonus of as 

much as $10 million. Merrill Lynch is 

one of the companies that has been in 

some difficulty. In fact, Merrill Lynch 

has been purchased and, as you will 

note from this chart, the top five banks 

that received taxpayer funds—I have 

not only listed them, but I talked 

about the amount of derivatives holdings they have. A substantial part of 

this recklessness has been hedge fund 

and CDOs and credit default swaps. 

J.P. Morgan got $25 billion in bailout 

funds, with $91.3 trillion in notional 

value as their derivatives holdings. 

Citigroup got $45 billion in bailout 

funds, plus we have guaranteed $306 billion of their toxic assets as well; and 

they have $37 trillion in derivatives 

holdings. The list goes on. 

Bank of America got $15 billion, and 

they have $39 trillion in notional value 

of derivatives. This is what I call ‘‘dark 

money.’’ Nobody knows where it is; nobody knows who is liable for it; nobody 

knows what kind of exposure this rancid, reckless dark money imposes on 

the balance sheets of America’s financial institutions. 

We are discovering that some of the 

largest financial institutions in the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE