S10858 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 10, 2008 

not realistic or fair to begin hearings 

before January 26. 

The week of January 19 is going to be 

occupied with the inauguration. And to 

have adequate time to prepare, it 

seems to me, that needs to be done. 

When we had hearings involving Chief 

Justice Roberts and Associate Justice 

Alito, consideration was made of the 

minority point of view, and extensive 

discussions were had, and there was an 

accommodation and agreement reached 

as to when the hearing was to be held. 

So we are looking at a serious matter 

and we have to do it right. It is going 

to take some time. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

PRYOR). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

EXTENSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the period 

for the transaction of morning business 

be extended until 6 p.m., with Senators 

permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes 

each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to present my remarks. I should 

not go over 10 minutes, but I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to 

do so. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ECONOMIC CRISIS 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if 

anyone sees the quietude that is enveloping our Chamber, they can reasonably ask a question about whether we 

are doing anything, is any work being 

done, what is taking place. I must tell 

you that I have to ask the same question. 

The American people are at a point 

of great stress. They expect us to be 

hard at work solving a major problem 

facing us. I don’t see the kind of visible 

stirring that ought to accompany our 

decisions over whether to get this job 

done. I hope that as we proceed further, 

we can get some kind of an agreement 

to at least let the American people 

know whether we support this idea 

that we provide some support for ailing 

companies that provide a lot of jobs in 

our society and how we can present 

economic opportunity that is so important for us. 

As we work to provide a better future 

for our country, it is obvious that we 

face a particularly difficult choice at 

this moment. An essential segment of 

the American industrial base, the U.S. 

auto industry, is at a critical juncture. 

These companies have been mismanaged, they have lacked foresight, 

and they have been out of touch with 

what consumers wanted. They failed to 

understand the demand for fuel-efficient automobiles with higher gas 

mileage and lower costs. They failed to 

provide innovative designs to encourage consumers around the world to buy 

American. Instead, they stood by like 

spectators at a sporting event while 

the first-place trophy was snatched 

away from the American people. 

I came to the Senate from the business community. I was chairman of a 

major company in this country, a company that now employs over 40,000 people. One thing I learned is that you 

must constantly update your product 

line if you want to succeed because 

otherwise someone else will and you 

will lose the opportunity, you will lose 

the sales, and you will lose your credibility. I find it shocking that the leaders of these giant companies failed to 

understand this basic rule of business. 

Instead of modernizing, they chose another path. They chose to spend millions of dollars on high-priced lobbyists 

to visit with us in our offices, asking 

Congress not to push them on fuel efficiency, not to urge that they move 

ahead with more efficient cars. Now 

they are here begging for our help. 

Unfortunately, the disaster facing 

the big three is not an isolated problem. It has implications for every 

American. If the big three go under, 

millions of jobs could go with them. In 

my State alone, New Jersey, the auto 

industry employs more than 43,000 people. Thousands of manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, insurance companies, 

and small businesses would likely be 

imperiled if the automakers fall. Our 

economy could go into further shock 

absorbing that kind of collapse, especially now with the unemployment 

rate the highest it has been in 15 years. 

So now we are being asked to decide 

whether we help General Motors, 

Chrysler, and Ford. If we agree to help 

them, this legislation has to have guarantees to protect the American taxpayers and for us to get this money 

back if we put it up at this time. For 

one thing, this cannot be free money. 

So it is essential that we only provide 

the big three with loans and lines of 

credit, not gifts, and that they have a 

clear plan to pay the money back. This 

relief package must also put strict caps 

on executive compensation and include 

an outright ban on big bonuses and 

golden parachutes for the highest paid 

managers. What is more, companies 

that receive funding must suspend paying any dividends to the shareholders. 

That is where these companies are. If 

we don’t do something, their equity 

will be worthless. We have to make 

sure no dividends are paid until the 

taxpayers are paid back the money we 

are going to put in. In addition, they 

have to make a promise to finally work 

toward greater fuel efficiency. 

To make sure automakers live up to 

these obligations—because we found 

out we cannot rely on their promises— 

the President should go ahead and appoint a car czar, someone who is devoting full time and attention to the resolution of this great problem. This administrator must work to get the Government repaid while monitoring the 

companies’ efforts to make sure they 

stay on a path to long-term success. 

That means the big three must be restructured to assure competitiveness, 

higher quality, profitability, improved 

fuel efficiency, and renewed market 

leadership. 

Doing nothing to help the big three 

could have catastrophic consequences 

for the job market and for American 

business leadership. However, a relief 

package for the big three automakers 

is no substitute for other stimulus provisions that our country desperately 

needs. We are in a severe recession, and 

for every month that this recession 

continues, more families fall behind, 

more small businesses fail, more life 

savings are lost, and more houses go 

into foreclosure. We have to find ways 

to change direction. We need bold 

strokes to get us out of this crisis. We 

need to stimulate our economy with infrastructure investments that will create jobs, increase energy independence, 

and get people to work quickly and efficiently. Transportation investments 

can give huge returns for the dollar. If 

we repair our schools and rebuild our 

crumbling infrastructure, we can create 2.5 million new jobs while reversing 

the declines we are witnessing. I mention these things because by doing 

them, we employ more people and we 

can be more optimistic as a country 

about our future. 

It is my hope that we can work together, all of us, Republicans and 

Democrats, energetically to meet these 

grave challenges. I put out a plea to 

ask our colleagues across the aisle to 

join with us to show the American people that we are hard at work, that we 

do care about what is happening, that 

we are worried about families being 

dispossessed from their homes, that we 

are worried about children who cannot 

afford an education, that we are worried about investments that will improve the quality of life in our society. 

I hope they will come around. 

I saw several of our colleagues on C– 

SPAN today at a press conference talking about why they didn’t see this as 

something of value. Something of 

value is evident when work is being 

done, when the public is hearing a debate about this crisis, when the other 

side of the aisle isn’t just being stubborn because they don’t want to give 

the Democrats or whomever an advantage. We need to debate whether we 

can pull these companies out of the 

holes they are in, save jobs, and restore 

America’s leadership in industry. 

Many in our country have lost faith 

as they worry about their ability to 

support themselves and their families. 

They look to us here in Washington to 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10859 

put aside partisanship and lead the way 

toward recovery. I hope we can get on 

with that. I hope we can get here to the 

floor, work as long and as hard as we 

have to, and with urgency, to show 

once again that we are supporting the 

interests of the American people. 

It happens that these companies are 

in an obvious place where something 

terrible can happen. But what matters 

is that we work to do something that 

brings value to our country, value to 

our people. We have to at least consider it. I am not saying we have to 

pass any particular bill. We want to 

make sure the things we are concerned 

about are in there. But we have to have 

activity instead of stubbornness and an 

unwillingness to actively consider solutions to the problems facing us. 

We are a great country, America, 

with its abundant resources and strong 

people, willing and eager to do their 

share. And as their representatives, we 

can do no less. So I hope we will see 

some activity fairly soon that tells the 

world out there that the Senate and 

the Congress are at work trying to help 

solve the problems instead of searching 

for ways to obstruct solutions. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SENATORS 

CHUCK HAGEL

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise tonight to recognize and 

pay tribute to my colleague from Nebraska, Senator CHUCK HAGEL, who is 

retiring from the Senate. When I entered this body nearly 8 years ago, Senator HAGEL welcomed me, and since 

then we have worked together on a 

number of important issues for the 

good of our great State and our country. We teamed up to seek Federal assistance to help Nebraskans recover 

from natural disasters, such as floods, 

ice storms, and drought; to win congressional approval for naming the new 

FBI building in Omaha after our esteemed late colleague, Senator J. 

James Exon, and on numerous other 

Nebraska projects. 

Like me, CHUCK HAGEL grew up in 

small communities in Nebraska. It is a 

special experience to be raised among 

Nebraskans under the wide open skies 

of the Great Plains. Helping hands are 

always nearby and opportunities seem 

limitless. From our families, friends, 

and neighbors, we both learned the bedrock values of love, of community, of 

faith, responsibility to others, and devotion to country. These values have 

been evident during Senator HAGEL’s 

tenure in this body. 

Also evident has been an important 

perspective he shared, one only a few 

Senators know firsthand, about the reality of war, gained as a decorated U.S. 

Army sergeant on violent battlefields 

in the Vietnam war and later as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Veterans’ Administration during the Reagan administration. 

Here in the Senate, he represented 

the people of Nebraska and the United 

States well as a member of the Foreign 

Relations Committee, the Banking 

Committee, the Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Rules Committee. He 

will long be remembered as one of our 

most outspoken and candid Members, 

as a patriot, and as one who took seriously his duties. Particularly through 

expressing his views on foreign policy, 

he fiercely advocated the constitutional principle that the legislative, 

executive, and judicial branches of government are equal partners. 

I take this opportunity to commend 

him for his honorable service to our 

State and Nation over these many 

years. And whatever path CHUCK HAGEL

embarks on next, I wish him and his 

wife Lilibet, daughter Allyn, and son 

Ziller only the best in their lives. It 

has been an honor to serve with him. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. 

CANTWELL). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mr. REID. Are we in a period of 

morning business or has it been closed? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, The 

Senate is in morning business. 

f 

CONCLUSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that morning business be closed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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, which the clerk will 

report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

Motion to proceed to S. 3297, a bill to advance America’s priorities. 

Mr. REID. I now ask that motion be 

withdrawn. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The motion is 

withdrawn. 

f 

ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2008—MOTION TO 

PROCEED 

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to 

Calendar No. 1128, H.R. 7005. 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 cloture 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. 1128, H.R. 7005, the 

Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act. 

Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, Byron L. 

Dorgan, Robert P. Casey, Jr., E. Benjamin Nelson, Joseph I. Lieberman, 

Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Carl 

Levin, Daniel K. Akaka, Barbara A. 

Mikulski, Charles E. Schumer, Christopher J. Dodd, Patty Murray, John D. 

Rockefeller, IV, Richard Durbin, Frank 

R. Lautenberg. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask 

the live quorum, mandatory under rule 

XXII, be waived. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I now 

ask the Senate proceed to a period of 

morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 

minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a 

quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 

be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

AUTOMOBILE CRISIS 

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I 

come to the floor to talk a little about 

the so-called auto bailout bill that is 

someplace out there wandering around. 

We don’t know where. 

I was in Iowa last week and traveling 

around and talking with people. A couple things kept coming up from time to 

time. One was the money we put into 

the so-called TARP program, the 

money we gave to Secretary Paulson 

before we adjourned in October and 

went home for the campaign, the $700 

billion. As we know, they got $350 billion of that, and now there is some talk 

that they will come back for the other 

$350 billion sometime, probably not 

this year but early next year. 

As we look at what happened to that 

$350 billion, a lot of people are quite 

disturbed, and count me among them. 

Rather than using the money to put 

out to banks to help extend credit, 

some of the banks were using it to buy 

other banks and get bigger. Some 

banks are using this money to invest in 

private equity firms, buy up businesses. One came to my attention last 

week when I was in Iowa—a company I 

don’t need to name—a company that 

had gone into bankruptcy. The owner 

of the company had wanted to buy it 

out of bankruptcy for a certain