November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10703 

The Senator from Oregon is recognized. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SENATORS 

GORDON SMITH

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, at 

this moment, exactly 13 years ago, I 

was locked in the toughest political 

battle of my life against GORDON H. 

SMITH. I went on to narrowly win that 

race and continue to hold that Senate 

seat today. But GORDON SMITH dusted 

himself off only a few months later and 

took on yet another very tough battle, 

and that time he won the Senate seat 

that had been held for 30 years by our 

remarkable Senator Mark Hatfield. 

At that point, Oregonians did not 

know what to make of their Senate 

delegation. They had two Senators, 

myself and Senator SMITH, who were 

replacing Bob Packwood and Mark 

Hatfield. Those two individuals were 

the chairman of the Finance Committee and the chairman of the Senate 

Appropriations Committee. And, of 

course, the old story was that Bob 

Packwood got to raise all of the money 

because he was chairman of the Finance Committee, and Mark Hatfield 

got to spend it all because he was 

chairman of the Appropriations Committee. 

Of course, I was very much concerned 

about what was ahead because I 

thought it was very possibly going to 

be a long and uncomfortable 6 years 

serving with the fellow with whom I 

had just duked it out over many 

months of a political campaign that, as 

the two of us like to say, was not exactly for the faint hearted. 

One of the great surprises of my career came, however, when I discovered 

that my new colleague, GORDON SMITH, 

was as thoughtful and kind and decent 

outside the political arena as he was 

tough and competitive inside the political arena. It was that charm and that 

decency and his desire to meet me halfway on Oregon’s interests that got me 

closer to GORDON over the years and led 

to an unusually strong working relationship and what became a strong and 

genuine friendship. 

GORDON lost a very tough reelection 

race a few weeks ago in a State that 

has changed rapidly from what was a 

very small Democratic voter edge, 

back when we ran against each other in 

1996, to what has become a significant 

Democratic voter edge in 2008. GORDON

and his skillful campaign team battled 

hard and tough as they always have. 

They did everything they could to 

withstand a formidable political tide 

and a very strong Democratic challenger, a challenger whom I support. 

So it is with mixed and conflicting 

emotions that I come today to pay 

tribute to my colleague and my friend 

of 12 years, GORDON H. SMITH. 

GORDON and I have had plenty of political differences, enough differences, 

differences that we knew would be the 

case, that made us say from our very 

first meeting, when GORDON won that 

race to replace Mark Hatfield, that we 

would be supporting each other’s opponents in years ahead. 

Political campaigns are important, 

and each of us was called upon to separate our friendship from our beliefs 

every 2 years. Yet I will say this afternoon that I have come to genuinely 

loathe much of what has become of the 

political process in our country. The 

relentless and omnipresent negative 

ads obscure and distort to the point 

that it can be difficult for the typical 

citizen to maintain anything resembling a healthy perspective on fundamentally good and decent individuals who seek public office. 

Thankfully, the negative ads are now 

off the air, and I want to make sure Oregonians once again remember the 

GORDON SMITH I have known for 12 

years. GORDON has been a good and decent and selfless public servant. 

The fact is, GORDON SMITH did not 

need to serve another term in the Senate. He and his wife Sharon have built 

a strong and prosperous business, and 

they could have done countless things 

with their time that would have been 

more glamorous and certainly produced less strain and wear and tear on 

their personal lives. But GORDON ran 

because of his belief in the role that he 

believed he could play in shaping our 

country’s future. That, in my view, is 

the essence of being a good public servant. No one in this body or in the State 

of Oregon ought to lose sight of the extraordinary sacrifices that GORDON and 

his wife Sharon have made over the 

course of almost two decades of public 

service. 

Among GORDON’s many personal triumphs in the Senate, I would like to 

highlight two that are especially important to our State, to our country, 

and to me personally. I wanted to remind my colleagues and the people of 

our country of the very difficult decisions made by GORDON and Sharon to 

share with the public and the Congress 

their heartrending struggle on behalf 

of their son, Garrett. They did this 

selflessly to further the cause of mental health treatment, and particularly 

the cause of mental health parity. 

If not for GORDON’s courage in sharing their family’s story, I believe Congress might not have acted on mental 

health parity this past fall, and thousands of parents might never know 

that they are not alone in their difficult struggle. 

There were other critical tasks that 

GORDON shouldered and one that I was 

especially appreciative for his leadership on, and that was being the voice 

for rural folks, for people whose way of 

life and quality of life is connected to 

natural resources that are bountiful in 

our State. 

GORDON spoke for the farmer, and he 

spoke for the rancher. He spoke for the 

logger, for the mill worker, and the 

miner. He spoke for the rural communities they live in, communities that 

struggle to retain a voice in increasingly urban America. 

It was written fairly frequently in 

Oregon’s papers, and was in the New 

York Times at one point, that there 

was something in the State of Oregon 

that people came to say was the Senate’s odd couple. In fact, I think the 

headline in the New York Times when 

they talked about us was wildly inflationary, and GORDON and I came to 

laugh about it. I think the headline 

was, ‘‘Oregon’s Odd Couple Makes It 

Work.’’ It was essentially all about 

how there were two Senators from Oregon; one of them was a Mormon fellow. He was a Republican. He was from 

somewhere called Pendleton. GORDON

and I were never convinced that folks 

in the New York Times knew exactly 

where Pendleton was, but that is how 

GORDON was described. 

Then they said, the other Senator 

was a Jewish guy, and he was from 

Portland and he was a legal aide lawyer for the senior citizens, and he was 

an activist with the Gray Panthers. 

What in the world would these two people ever have in common? 

Well, I want people to know that 

gentle spirit, that Mormon from wheat 

and pea country taught this Jewish fellow from the city an awful lot about 

the too often forgotten voices, particularly those in our rural communities. 

In his absence, I will do everything I 

can to remind colleagues, particularly 

Democratic colleagues on my side of 

the aisle, of the challenges faced in 

rural communities, of the people and 

the issues that GORDON H. SMITH championed every single day in the Senate. 

I wish GORDON and Sharon well in 

whatever their future endeavors are. I 

have already made it clear they will always have my friendship and assistance in any project they pursue in the 

days ahead. But most importantly, I 

come to the floor and thank GORDON

for his personal friendship to me and 

his service to our State. I ask my colleagues here and the people of our 

home State to voice their thanks today 

to two very special people, Sharon and 

GORDON H. SMITH. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I 

have listened to the eloquent comments of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. 

WYDEN. I had planned to insert a statement in the RECORD complementing 

Senator GORDON SMITH on his tenure, 

but I would like to add my voice of 

laudatory comments at the conclusion 

of the statement of Senator WYDEN. I 

agree with him that Senator GORDON

SMITH has made an enormous contribution to the Senate in his two terms, 

and he will be sorely missed. He is a 

member of a small band of moderates 

on this side of the aisle. I suggest that 

GORDON SMITH’s brand of Republicanism is very much in need in this 

body. Very frequently, Members on the 

Democratic side of the aisle seek cosponsors. I have been told on a number 

of occasions that the ‘‘pickins are 

slim.’’ GORDON’s absence will make it 

more difficult. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S10704 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 20, 2008 

GORDON SMITH has been outspoken on 

many of the very important causes 

which require bipartisanship. He was 

one of the few on this side of the aisle 

to sponsor legislation to fight hate 

crimes, for example. At the outset, support for Federal funding for embryonic 

stem cell research was limited. GORDON

SMITH was at the forefront of that effort, as I was. GORDON SMITH made a 

very eloquent speech from his chair a 

few rows behind me on the Iraq war. He 

was moved one day to come over and 

spoke from the heart, something which 

happens relatively infrequently in this 

Chamber. Sometimes people in this 

Chamber speak from the head. Even 

that has its limited aspects, if we take 

a close look at the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD. But GORDON SMITH was a big 

plus here. 

I would like to associate myself with 

the remarks of Senator WYDEN. I know 

GORDON is a young, vigorous man. He 

has a bright future ahead of him. I 

think he will live to fight another day 

on the political wars. Some of us have 

had an election loss or two. It is a 

learning experience, not one I recommend, but there are ways to move 

forward. That can be a lesson which 

could stand anyone in good stead. I am 

sure Senator GORDON SMITH has a great 

future ahead of him. 

JOHN SUNUNU

Madam President, I also wish to pay 

tribute to my friend Senator JOHN

SUNUNU for his service to the country 

and his contributions to the U.S. Senate. Senator SUNUNU’s departure from 

the Senate will be a great loss to this 

body, as well as to the state of New 

Hampshire. 

I have known Senator SUNUNU since 

he joined the Senate in 2002. I have always found him to be an intelligent, 

engaged, and capable legislator who 

cares deeply for the well-being of his 

constituents and doing what is right 

for the Nation, regardless of the political cost. 

Senator SUNUNU followed his father 

and mother into public service, when 

he ran for public office in 1996 and won 

the election in New Hampshire’s First 

Congressional District. JOHN served 

three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives where he quickly established a reputation as an innovative 

legislator. JOHN effectively applied his 

extensive background in science, engineering, and small business during his 

six years in the House of Representatives where he rose to become vicechairman of the Budget Committee and 

took a leading role in shaping our Nation’s annual budget priorities. 

In 2002, JOHN joined the Senate after 

defeating both an incumbent Senator 

and an incumbent Governor to become 

the youngest Member of the United 

States Senate. I have admired JOHN’s 

work on his committees: the Finance 

Committee, the Commerce Committee, 

and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. On these 

committees, SUNUNU played a major 

role on the lobbying reform legislation, 

and he got the Bush Administration to 

make some crucial changes in the Patriot Act before he voted to reauthorize 

it. 

SUNUNU has also gained a reputation 

as a well respected fiscal conservative. 

On a personal note, Senator SUNUNU

has been a very good friend to me. 

When I underwent chemotherapy for 

Hodgkin’s disease and lost my hair, 

Senator SUNUNU showed up one day on 

the Senate floor with a shaved head. He 

said that he had shaved his head in a 

sign of solidarity for what I was going 

through. 

I wish JOHN, his wife Kitty, and his 

three lovely children the best of luck 

as they move forward. I have no doubt 

that Senator SUNUNU has a bright future and will continue to make important contributions to New Hampshire 

and the entire Nation. 

ELIZABETH DOLE

Senator ELIZABETH DOLE is a colleague leaving the U.S. Senate not in 

defeat but in the wake of a career dedicated to public service and an unwavering commitment to her country. She 

has had an illustrious career as a twotime cabinet member, President of Red 

Cross, and U.S. Senator. ELIZABETH is a 

model for all young women considering 

a career in government, for in times 

when the ceiling had but few cracks 

she bore through the naysayers and 

showed a woman belongs in the Nation’s highest positions. 

After graduating from Harvard Law 

as one of just 29 woman in a class of 

550, ‘‘Liddy’’ went to work in the White 

House Office of Consumer Affairs where 

she worked under both President Johnson and Nixon. Pledging her allegiance 

to her job and duty to the country, 

Senator DOLE opted to switch parties 

in order to continue her stay in the 

White House. After a stint on the Federal Trade Commission, President 

Reagan appointed ELIZABETH Secretary 

of Transportation in 1983. She served 

valiantly in that position for 41⁄2 years, 

proving her skill at managing a Federal Department, and became the Secretary of Labor under President George 

H.W. Bush. With this position, ELIZABETH became the first woman to hold 

two different cabinet positions under 

two different administrations. 

In 1991 ELIZABETH accepted a different challenge becoming the President of the American Red Cross, dedicating her time to building an institution whose impassioned mission is to 

aid our Nation’s citizens who are in 

need of emergency assistance. During 

her tenure with the Red Cross, ELIZABETH took a brief hiatus to stand by 

her husband, Senator Bob Dole, as he 

represented our party as the nominee 

for President in 1996. After a hardfought race ELIZABETH began looking 

into the idea of running for our Nation’s highest office on her own right. 

This came to fruition in 1999 as she 

again led the way for women and became the first official female candidate 

for President. She exhibited toughness 

and political tact in a race that history 

had not been very welcoming to 

women. 

In 2001 ELIZABETH’s path to the U.S. 

Senate took her through her birth 

home of Salisbury, NC. Using her full 

career serving our Nation as a foundation, ELIZABETH won her seat to the 

U.S. Senate and immediately made her 

presence known. Spending her time on 

the Armed Services, Banking, Small 

Business and Aging committees, ELIZABETH worked for North Carolinians 

with the same passion and dedication 

she possessed throughout her career. 

Her achievements were many, but to 

name a few she successfully opposed 

potential closings of U.S. military 

bases, protected delicate wetlands and 

woodlands in northeastern North Carolina from ruination from an ill-advised 

Navy landing strip proposal, and also 

served as the chairwoman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 2004 election cycle. 

I wish to thank ELIZABETH for her 

service, friendship, and for being there 

for my dear friend Bob throughout the 

years. Senator DOLE, your contributions to this chamber and our Nation 

will forever be remembered. 

I yield the floor. 

TED STEVENS

Madam President, the departure of 

the senior Senator from Alaska will 

surely deprive the Senate of an exemplary leader who has made a profound 

effect on this body. Being the longest 

serving Republican in Senate history, 

Senator STEVENS has made countless 

contributions to this body. His achievements include serving as the chairman 

of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, former chairman of the full 

Appropriations Committee, and President Pro Tempore. 

TED’s temper is generally misunderstood except by those who know him 

best. He doesn’t lose it, but he does use 

it—and effectively. However, it is true 

that on occasion he makes Vesuvius 

look mild. I recollect one all-night session during Senator Howard Baker’s 

tenure as majority leader when TED expressed himself in an unusually emphatic way. As I recall it, the debate 

arose over Senator Proxmire’s comments about submitting vouchers for 

travel expense in Wisconsin on his contention that Washington, DC, was his 

home base. That prompted a reaction 

from TED, who was aghast at the 

thought of Washington, DC, being any 

Senator’s home when he had the majestic Alaska to claim as his home. 

Senator STEVENS’ service during 

WWII in the U.S. Army Air Corps has 

given him a special understanding of 

defense matters. He is a distinguished 

veteran of the U.S. Army Air Corps, 

having flown support missions for the 

Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force 

during World War II, for which he was 

awarded numerous medals, including 

the Distinguished Flying Cross. Upon 

his arrival in the U.S. Senate in 1968 it 

became evident TED would become a 

leader on military and defense issues. 

His hard work as the chairman of the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10705 

Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 

earned him high praise from President 

Bush for his management of $87 billion 

supplemental appropriations bill in 

2003. 

Recently, Senator STEVENS has found 

himself in the midst of the debate on 

energy policy and finding innovative 

approaches to our dependency on oil. 

He labored intensely over these matters which he believed so strongly to be 

best not only for the country in particular but especially for Alaska. TED’s 

work ethic and tenacity always made 

this Chamber a better place. His passion for serving his State and country 

will forever be remembered. Thank 

you, TED, for everything you have done 

for the United States and Alaska. 

f 

AUTO INDUSTRY BAILOUT 

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, 

earlier today, Senators LEVIN, BOND, 

VOINOVICH, STABENOW, BROWN, and I announced a legislative proposal to deal 

with the crisis being faced by the automobile manufacturers. For a protracted period of time, Congress has 

wrestled with this issue. There have 

been many conflicting points of view as 

to what ought to be done. There has 

been little public sympathy for the 

plight of the auto manufacturers because they have been on notice for a 

long while of the need to reorganize 

and to approach the manufacture of 

automobiles differently in order to 

compete with foreign cars. There have 

been repeated efforts in the Congress to 

impose mileage standards. Finally, 

that was done last year. Now, with the 

severe economic problems facing the 

country, the automobile manufacturers 

find themselves in dire straits. The 

chief executive officers of General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford have been on 

Capitol Hill with very gloomy predictions as to the future of their companies if they do not get economic aid. 

It is a difficult matter to provide economic aid to all those who are in need. 

It is true the Federal Government has 

provided economic assistance to Bear 

Sterns and AIG, turned them down 

with Lehman Brothers. We are well 

aware of the fact that there could be 

very serious repercussions for the economy as a whole if the auto manufacturers fail. There has been considerable 

talk that they could go into a reorganization and bankruptcy and could 

emerge. That may well be true. But 

that could be risky as to what would 

happen. 

The Congress authorized some $700 

billion to assist on an economic recovery. That legislation has not been 

warmly received by the American people. During the month of October, I 

traveled broadly in Pennsylvania and 

found very strong public sentiment in 

opposition. The Congress acted in the 

face of having our backs to the wall or 

a gun at our heads or any other metaphor of a critical nature that one 

would choose. 

On September 29, the House of Representatives failed to pass an economic 

recovery program. Senators were notified to be in the Chamber at 7:30 on 

Wednesday evening to vote. Regrettably, that legislative process did not 

follow regular order. It started off with 

a bill with papers from the Treasury 

Department. It wasn’t a bill. It was a 4- 

page memorandum, later expanded to 

more than 100 pages, ultimately to 

more than 400 pages. But when regular 

order is not followed, the consequence 

is likely to be not so good. Regular 

order requires a bill that one can read 

and study. It requires hearings before a 

committee where people are proponents and opponents. There is examination and cross-examination to get 

at the facts. Then the committee—in 

this case, the Banking Committee— 

would sit down and have what is called 

a markup to go through the bill line by 

line. 

I explain this in some detail so there 

might be some understanding, if anybody is listening on C–SPAN this afternoon. Certainly, the Chamber is customarily barren, as is frequently the 

case. Senators are busy with other 

matters. Then after the markup, the 

committee files a report. Then it 

comes to the floor. There is debate, discussion, amendments. Then the Senate 

works its will. On the House side across 

the Rotunda, down the hall, the House 

of Representatives goes through a similar process. Then representatives of the 

two bodies meet for a conference. Then 

that is presented to the President. So 

there is a great deal of refining. 

That didn’t happen with the $700 billion economic aid proposal. It turned 

out there was a lot of pork in the final 

draft that no one had a chance to 

strike, to offer amendments. It was embarrassing to have to defend that kind 

of a bill as I traveled my State in October to explain it. So there is great 

skepticism, fairly stated, among the 

American people as to the wisdom of 

the Congress in putting up $700 billion. 

Now, with the automakers coming in 

asking for economic aid, the question 

arises, who next? Last Friday, I wrote 

to our leaders urging that we not rush 

to judgment. I made a similar request, 

made an extensive floor statement earlier this week on Monday. That letter 

and others are in the RECORD, and I 

will not encumber the RECORD further 

because they are available for anyone 

who cares to look at them. 

Secretary of the Treasury Paulson 

has been unwilling to use the $700 billion to assist the automakers. He may 

be right about that or he may be wrong 

about that. But that is the position the 

Treasury Department has taken, saying that money is for the economy generally. 

Then the idea has been proposed—and 

has been embodied in what Senators 

LEVIN, STABENOW, VOINOVICH, BOND, 

BROWN, and I announced earlier 

today—to use funds up to $25 billion 

from the 2007 appropriations which had 

been designated to meet the mileage 

requirements but not a blank check. 

Before any of those funds could be utilized at the direction of the Secretary 

of Commerce, there would have to be a 

plan. There would have to be a factual 

statement as to what the condition of 

the automobile manufacturers is, what 

would be done with the additional 

funds, what would be undertaken to 

guarantee that the moneys would not 

be used for increased executive pay or 

corporate jets or golden parachutes. 

There would have to be some hard, concrete facts laid out. 

Last Friday, as I put in the RECORD

this week, I wrote a letter to the chief 

executive officers of the three companies. I got no response from General 

Motors. I got no response from Ford. 

Frankly, I’m a little surprised that 

when an inquiry is made in that context, there is not an effort to respond, 

not to reach out but to respond. But 

executives from Chrysler came to see 

me, and I raised the questions as to 

what their condition was, how much 

cash they had on hand, how much cash 

they needed, what they would do with 

an infusion of economic aid, and what 

were the prospects for a recovery. 

That matter has now been put over 

by the leaders until December 8. So we 

now have 2 weeks, next week and the 

week after. Presumably, on the week of 

December 1, there will be hearings. The 

automobile manufacturers are going to 

have a fairly heavy burden of demonstrating that there is a plan which 

will be viable, which would have a realistic likelihood of success. 

I understand the concern of the environmentalists. My record for environmental protection is very strong. But 

those in the environmental community 

have raised the concern that the $25 

billion ought not to be directed away 

from changes on gas mileage. We are 

talking about a bridge loan. The concern is, if action is not taken now before a new administration, that there 

could be a disastrous result. As Senator VOINOVICH pointed out, the recession or economic problems could be 

even more serious. The expression he 

used, which I think is not inappropriate, it could go over the cliff. Nobody knows. But that is a risk, if we 

are going to wait until January 20. It 

may even be a risk in waiting until 

mid-December, but that is the course 

which we are on now. Of course, Secretary Paulson has the discretion, as 

he has conceded, to act with the funds 

which are now available. But in any 

event, I believe the legislation which 

was announced today by the six Senators,—three Democrats, three Republicans, on a bipartisan basis—is a useful approach for the future. This is 

very important. This is not an extra 

appropriation. We are not putting up 

more money. It is a different use of 

moneys already put up. The environmental issues could be safeguarded 

after January 20. With the Democrats 

in control of both Houses and the 

White House, they could write their 

own ticket to replenish that fund, if 

they choose to do so. But at least we 

are on a course now in the reasonably 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE