S10826 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 9, 2008 

but a potential for getting 80 to even 90 

miles per gallon by using an alternative onboard fuel system, a propulsion system, not to propel the car but 

to recharge the battery. Unfortunately, 

we have not built the battery yet. Nobody has built a battery yet that can 

do that or designed one that will work 

at minus 10 degrees Fahrenheit or 110 

degrees Fahrenheit. They have worked 

for 10 years under all kinds of conditions. Efforts are underway in many 

countries to win a race to build that 

battery. The Federal Government has 

provided a fair amount of financial 

support, investing in technology to 

make sure we get to the finish line 

ahead of our foreign competitors. It is 

an important race. GM, I think, stands 

to benefit from this, and so do the folks 

who work there and those who have 

shares with GM. So do the rest of us, 

frankly. 

Let me come back to what I said earlier, about the conversation I had with 

several people on the train coming 

from Wilmington today. They said to 

me: We didn’t like the fact that you 

gave all that money to the banks, and 

we don’t like the idea of giving all that 

money to the auto industry. If you 

look at what we have done with the financial institutions, we have, under 

the legislation, created a so-called 

TARP. Under that legislation we authorize the Treasury to invest in the 

banks, to take an equity position. With 

the moneys we have infused or invested 

into most of these banks, we bought 

preferred stock. That preferred stock 

pays initially 5 percent per year, and 

later 9 percent if it is not bought back 

by the banks. In addition, we get options, much as we did with Chrysler in 

1980, that could be converted into 

shares of stock that we can benefit 

from—not just we but the taxpayers 

can benefit from. 

The idea there was to make the investment with the possibility that if 

there is an upside or rebound by the financial institutions that asked for this 

investment, the taxpayers have the opportunity to participate in the profits, 

as we did with respect to Chrysler all 

those years ago. The money that we 

are now talking about, or will be debating, whether to make available for 

working capital for the auto companies—let me add that only Chrysler 

and GM have indicated an interest in 

drawing down this money. Ford said: 

We think we are OK. Maybe later we 

will need a line of credit. For now, we 

think we are all right. 

That is good news. So what we are 

working on is an approach where we, 

just as we invested in the financial institutions in order to get back preferred stock that pays 5 to 9 percent 

and also carries the possibility of warrants that we can turn into profit-making stock shares later, we want to do 

the same thing with our auto industry. 

The Presiding Officer will recall a 

year or so ago when we passed CAFE 

legislation. In it we passed section 136, 

which said we want to provide as much 

as $25 billion so that the auto companies can modernize their plants for the 

principal purpose of building more energy-efficient vehicles. We feel that is 

what is needed—high quality and good 

productivity. But that is one of the 

major things needed to be competitive 

in the world today: energy-efficient 

cars, trucks, vans, and so forth. 

That $25 billion is not going to be 

available, apparently, right away to go 

into plant modernization. 

The idea is to take as much as $15 

billion of that $25 billion to make 

available to Chrysler and General Motors. The idea is not to give them this 

money; the idea is to invest this money 

in ways they can use it for working 

capital to get them through the next 

several months and, in the meantime, 

to require, under the guidance of what 

has been called a czar or an oversight 

board whose job would be to act almost 

as a bankruptcy judge, to make sure 

that further savings are realized by 

both Chrysler and GM but to ensure 

there is some further givebacks not 

just from labor, not just from management, not just from bondholders, not 

just from dealers, and not just from 

lenders but all the above. It is a concept that makes sense. The idea of here 

is $15 billion, and we hope you can get 

better and repay the money down the 

line, is not what we are interested in 

doing. 

We want to improve the likelihood 

that we will get back every dime we 

lend of this $15 billion and more, if 

needed, later on. But we want to make 

sure the companies, particularly 

Chrysler, Ford, and GM, make the additional changes they need to increase 

the likelihood that they will be viable 

for a long period of time. 

I close by saying we are seeing a real 

transformation in our economy. We 

used to be a big manufacturing country. We are less so today. Some people 

say that is fine, we will be a service 

economy, we will provide financial 

services and legal services, we will 

have insurance companies, maybe we 

will grow some food to feed ourselves 

and some of the rest of the world. But 

at the end of the day, we still need to 

make things. We still need to make 

things that people here and around the 

world want to buy. 

One of the things I believe we need to 

make are cars, trucks, and vans. It has 

been that way for a long time. It needs 

to continue to be that way going forward. 

I have had the privilege of representing and working for the people of 

Delaware, gosh, since 1976, when they 

elected me their State treasurer. We 

have had two auto assembly plants in 

my State for 50, 60 years—a Chrysler 

plant and a GM plant. The Chrysler 

plant is going to close at the end of 

this month. It is painful to me, and I 

know all the people who work there, 

the retirees, all who bought their vehicles and supported the plants in ways 

large and small over the years. But the 

writing is on the wall. My fear is that 

is going to happen. 

As this happens and we see plants 

such as our plant in Newark, DE, the 

Chrysler plant, close, it is important 

we also remember the people who are 

losing their jobs there, the folks who 

have not enough experience, enough 

time to retire and be eligible for benefits. As they prepare to close the doors 

at the Chrysler plant in Newark, DE, I 

wish to make sure the folks who are 

losing their livelihood have the opportunity to be trained for other jobs in 

my State or other States that will enable them to be gainfully employed, to 

make a decent income for themselves 

and to support their families. 

One of the things we can do, in addition to providing, if you will, a loan 

guarantee or direct loan with strong 

conditions to these auto companies, is 

remember our responsibilities to those 

who are left behind and those left behind without the prospect of ever 

working again in the auto industry. 

There are some countries around the 

world—Finland comes to mind, Denmark, and a couple others—that do a 

good job. As industries grow up, mature, the nature of the job market, the 

industries in those countries change. 

Some countries around the world do a 

very good job of helping people whose 

skills for building, whether it is cars or 

buggies or buggy whips, are no longer 

appropriate—retraining people, supporting them for a period of time, giving them the social support net they 

need but then training them for jobs 

that need to be done, in this case, in 

the 21st century. 

There you have it, some thoughts. 

My hope is we will come back and have 

a robust debate for the remainder of 

this week, and before this week is over 

we will vote not to give away $15 billion to Chrysler or to GM but that we 

will vote to be willing, as we did in 

1980, to make an investment that has a 

potential upside, not just for the people 

who work in the companies, not just 

for the people who own shares of those 

companies but also for the American 

taxpayers. If we do take on this risk, 

there needs to be a reward for the taxpayers whose money is at risk. 

Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity. 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. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

MCCASKILL). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO EINAR DYHRKOPP 

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this 

past Saturday, 1 day before the 75th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, a survivor of a different World War 

II kamikaze bombing died quietly at 

his home in Shawneetown, IL, at the 

age of 82. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
December 9, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10827 

Einar Dyhrkopp, business leader, 

public servant, and patriot, was a 19- 

year-old Navy firefighter assigned to 

the bowels of the USS Aaron Ward 

when the destroyer-minelayer was attacked by 25 kamikaze bombers in the 

battle for Okinawa. 

In the years after World War II, Gen. 

George C. Marshall was asked if America had any secret weapons to win that 

conflict. General Marshall replied, yes, 

we do, ‘‘the best darn kids in the 

world.’’ Einar was just the kind of kid 

General Marshall was talking about. 

About 365 men were assigned to the 

USS Aaron Ward; 42 of them burned to 

death or were lost overboard in the 52- 

minute battle on May 3, 1945. Einar was 

one of the lucky ones: he survived the 

attack, although his hair was burned 

to his scalp as he fought to douse the 

ship’s flames. 

When the war ended, Einar came 

home like so many World War II vets, 

found new ways to serve his country. 

He married Frances, and they had a 

son. He was a banker, a business leader, a livestock and grain farmer in 

southern Illinois, and a great politician. He was elected mayor of 

Shawneetown, IL, where he was born 

and lived his entire life. He was a selfdescribed ‘‘dyed in the wool’’ Democrat. He was respected and admired by 

people from both political parties. 

He was also a dedicated public servant. In 1993, Einar Dyhrkopp was appointed by President Bill Clinton to 

the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors and served two terms as the 

Chairman. During his tenure, the Postal Service experienced an unprecedented 5 straight years of positive net 

income. It also enhanced service and 

increased its ontime delivery rate for 

next-day delivery to 94 percent. He 

cared about the Postal Service’s bottom line and its customers. He talked 

to me so many times about issues related to the Postal Service. He cared 

about the workers there too. He once 

invited picketing postal workers in for 

coffee and cinnamon rolls and, after 

talking with them, answered all of 

their questions. He visited countless 

postal facilities, asking employees 

what we can do to make their job better and make our services better in the 

Postal Service. In 2003, the post office 

in his beloved Shawneetown was rededicated and renamed in his honor. 

Einar had tears in his eyes as the tributes were read. 

Mr. Dyhrkopp also served on several 

Illinois State commissions and was a 

member of the Regional Advisory 

Board of Southern Illinois University 

Public Policy Institute. 

There was the one curious political 

chapter in his life. In 1986, Einar 

Dyhrkopp ran what he called a noncampaign for the U.S. Senate. He ran 

on the Illinois Solidarity Party slate, a 

roster of statewide candidates put together by Adlai Stevenson III. Mr. Stevenson, son of the two-time Democratic Presidential candidate, had won 

the Democratic nomination for Governor, but that primary had been raided by the LaRouche party. He abandoned the Democratic Party ticket 

after two disciples of the extremist 

Lyndon LaRouche won slots on the 

Democratic slate in a disastrous primary election. Mr. Stevenson said he 

could not in good conscience share a 

ticket with people whose views he 

found so objectionable. State law required that the new Illinois Solidarity 

Party field a whole slate of statewide 

candidates, not just the gubernatorial 

candidate. So Einar stepped up and 

agreed to be the new party’s nominee 

for U.S. Senate. 

What a crazy campaign. Mr. 

Dyhrkopp did not accept a single penny 

in campaign contributions. He did not 

spend a dollar or make one speech. He 

did not even vote for himself, announcing he was going to cast his ballot for 

his friend, the incumbent, Senator 

Alan Dixon. As one political writer put 

it, his strategy was ‘‘not to leave the 

house until the election was over so he 

wouldn’t draw attention or votes away 

from Senator . . . Dixon.’’ Despite his 

best efforts to avoid the voters, Einar 

ended up with 15,000 votes. That is the 

kind of man he was—hard not to like. 

As my friend Paul Simon said some 

years ago, ‘‘Einar Dyhrkopp represents 

responsible citizenship at its best. He 

has aided his community and provided 

leadership on the State and national 

scene. He has gone out of his way to 

help those who need assistance.’’ 

For years after the bombing of the 

USS Aaron Ward, Einar did not talk 

about the attack. He told a reporter, 

‘‘When you go through something like 

we went through together, almost everyone wants to get it out of their 

minds the first few years.’’ Later in 

life, he changed his mind. He became 

active in a group of survivors of the 

Aaron Ward attack. He was interviewed 

by Southern Illinois University’s public broadcasting stations in conjunction with the broadcast of ‘‘The War,’’ 

by Ken Burns, a documentary on World 

War II. He told a reporter that his 

change of heart was simply because 

‘‘[w]e do not want the experience lost. 

If you lose history, you’re destined to 

repeat it.’’ 

America’s history might have taken 

a far different and darker course had 

Einar Dyhrkopp and millions of others 

of ‘‘the best darned kids in the world’’ 

not sacrificed and served in that conflict and had they not come back home 

to serve their Nation in other ways for 

decades more. 

He was a good man who gave much to 

his community, much to my State of 

Illinois, and much to America. Last 

Friday, at the urging of some friends 

who told me he was seriously ill, I 

called his home. Frances answered the 

phone, and I told her who I was. I said 

I thought I would say a word or two to 

Einar if he can take the call. Well, she 

said, I am not sure he can talk to you. 

I did not know how sick he was. And 

she leaned over, and I could overhear 

her saying: Einar, it is Senator DURBIN. 

The next think I knew, Einar was on 

the phone. We only chatted for a 

minute or two. We talked about the 

great times we had together, about 

that wonderful man, Paul Simon, who 

inspired us all to get involved in public 

life. 

He said: I think this is the end for 

me. 

I said: You have had a good run at it, 

Einar. You have been with some great 

people, and you have been a great 

friend. 

Those were our last words. He died 

the following day. 

I offer my sympathy to Mr. 

Dyhrkopp’s wife Frances, their family, 

including their three grandchildren, 

and so many friends in southern Illinois. Einar Dyhrkopp will be missed. 

I yield the floor, and 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that the order for the quorum call be 

rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SALAZAR). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SENATORS 

JOHN WARNER

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Today is a 

day I have dreaded. Today I say farewell to my good friend and esteemed 

colleague, Senator JOHN WARNER. 

A few years ago, in an article for a 

Capitol Hill publication, Senator WARNER called attention to the courage of 

America’s war veterans. He explained 

that the men and women who serve in 

our military are ‘‘heroes [who] share 

the timeless virtues of patriotism and 

selfless devotion to duty in defending 

our country.’’ 

Mr. President, Senator WARNER is 

one of my ‘‘heroes.’’ He is a man who 

has always displayed ‘‘the timeless virtues of patriotism and selfless devotion 

to duty in defending our country.’’ 

Indeed, Senator WARNER has spent 

his life in service to our country. He 

enlisted in the Navy at the tender age 

of 17 in order to serve in World War II. 

A few years later, he joined the Marines in order to serve in the Korean 

conflict. From 1969 to 1972, he served as 

the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 

and from 1972 to 1974, as Secretary of 

the Navy. 

In 1978, he was elected to the U.S. 

Senate, and is now the second longestserving Senator in the history of his 

beloved Commonwealth of Virginia. 

His entire Senate career has been 

marked by his dignity, style, grace, 

and integrity. He is one of those men 

with whom one can disagree without 

rancor. I cannot recall ever hearing 

anyone speak ill of JOHN WARNER. 

A few years ago, on another occasion 

in which I paid tribute to my good 

friend, I referred to him as ‘‘the 

classiest of class acts’’—and he is. We 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE