December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10871 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE 

REPUBLICAN LEADER 

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following communication from the Honorable JOHN A. 

BOEHNER, Republican Leader: 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

December 10, 2008. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, 

Speaker, 

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SPEAKER PELOSI: Pursuant to section 

1238(b)(3) of the Floyd D. Spence National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2001, (22 U.S.C. 7002) amended by Division P 

of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (22 U.S.C. 6901), I am pleased to reappoint Mr. Larry Wortzel of Williamsburg, 

Virginia, to the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, effective January 1, 2009. 

Mr. Wortzel has expressed interest in serving in this capacity and I am pleased to fulfill his request. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, 

f 

Republican Leader. 

WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF 

CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH 

RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF 

CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, 

by direction of the Committee on 

Rules, I call up House Resolution 1533 

and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: 

H. RES. 1533 

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 

6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules 

on the same day it is presented to the House 

is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of December 13, 2008, providing for consideration or 

disposition of a measure relating to financial 

assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes. 

SEC. 2. House Resolutions 1516 and 1526 are 

laid on the table. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 

for 1 hour. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, 

for the purpose of debate only, I yield 

the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER). 

All time yielded during consideration 

of the rule is for debate only. 

I yield myself such time as I may 

consume and ask unanimous consent 

that all Members be given 5 legislative 

days in which to revise and extend 

their remarks on House Resolution 

1533. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New York? 

There was no objection. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, 

H. Res. 1533 waives clause 6(a) of rule 

XIII, which would require a two-thirds 

vote to consider a rule on the same day 

it is reported from the Rules Committee. The waiver would apply to any 

rule reported through the legislative 

day of December 13, 2008, that provides 

for consideration or disposition of a 

measure to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers. 

This is not an unusual procedure, 

particularly at the end of a legislative 

session. I want to point out that my 

friends on the other side of the aisle in 

the 109th Congress reported at least 21 

rules that allowed for same-day consideration. In fact, five of those rules 

waived this requirement against any 

rule reported from the committee. This 

rule is for a true emergency. It is for 

one purpose, and that is to help facilitate the prompt consideration of bipartisan legislation that will prevent the 

collapse of our domestic auto industry. 

I hope Members on both sides of the 

aisle will support this rule so we can 

move quickly to address this economic 

crisis before the end of the year and 

the end of this Congress. 

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given 

permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I was 

just talking to my very good friend, 

my fellow Californian, Mr. LUNGREN, 

and he reminded me that what I should 

be doing is expressing my appreciation 

to the very distinguished Chair of the 

Committee on Rules for complimenting 

me on the fine work product of the past 

Congress when it comes to reporting 

out measures such as this. 

But I will say, Madam Speaker, that 

I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 

I rise in opposition to this rule because 

it is a martial law rule which provides 

the opportunity for this measure to 

come to the floor at any time during 

the next 4 days. And it is unprecedented. And I know that the gentlewoman has pointed to the fact that at 

the end of the Congress, it is very often 

that measures like this are utilized. 

But there is not a strong bipartisan 

consensus for us to proceed with the 

measure that is being considered now. 

This is, in fact, a $15 billion bailout 

bill that is not impacting just an entire 

industry, it’s impacting three particular entities within that industry, 

and to do it under a completely closed 

process. The distinguished Chair of the 

Committee on Financial Services, Mr. 

FRANK, acknowledged upstairs, as was 

stated by the ranking Republican, Mr. 

BACHUS, this was a completely closed 

process, and we find this to be very, 

very unfortunate that we’re here trying to do this in such a manner. 

Now, when we were upstairs in the 

Rules Committee, one of the things 

that has come forward is the fact that 

the American people are hurting. We 

all know that. We very much need to 

take steps to ensure that we can get 

this economy growing, and there is a 

bipartisan consensus on the need to 

grow our economy. We’ve lost hundreds 

of thousands of jobs, as we all know, 

and in light of that, it is imperative 

that we take immediate action to try 

to create jobs for American workers. 

And that’s the reason that my colleague Mr. DIAZ-BALART, the gentleman from Miami, and I joined in the 

Rules Committee last night to do 

something that most people thought 

we were going to do last spring and we 

should have done last spring. And there 

was acknowledgment, bipartisan acknowledgment, by Members, including 

Members of the leadership in the majority, that we would, in fact, quite 

possibly consider this measure in a 

lame duck session. And I’m referring, 

of course, to the very important U.S.- 

Columbia Free Trade Agreement. 

Last April 10, Madam Speaker, there 

was a rigorous debate here, and we for 

the first time ever saw the Speaker of 

the House take action which subverted 

the 1974 Trade Act. Basically sent a 

message that said the following: We as 

Americans want to embark on negotiations with the country, and under the 

traditional, what has existed since 1974, 

so-called fast-track authority, or what 

we refer to now as trade promotion authority existed, so that that measure 

would come back to the Congress and 

there would be an up-or-down vote. 

And for the first time ever in basically 

decades and decades, since 1974, we saw 

that plan completely thrown out the 

window. That promise that had been 

made was thrown out the window. But 

there was one hope left, and that hope 

was that after the election, in a postelection session, which is where we are 

right now, we would have an opportunity for a debate and a vote as to 

whether or not we would pry open the 

market in Colombia, 40 million consumers strong, and create an opportunity for U.S. workers in Indiana, in 

Ohio, in Illinois, all across this country 

to have a chance to sell their products 

into Colombia. That’s really what this 

agreement is all about. It’s all about 

opening up access to their markets so 

that we can create good jobs. 

Now, the distinguished Chair of the 

Committee on Rules last night was 

talking about the economic challenges 

that are faced, the economic difficulty, 

the devastation that exists in Rochester, Buffalo, and other parts of upstate New York. We recognize that 

very well. Kodak is one of her largest 

employers, Madam Speaker, and I believe that by virtue of passing this 

U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, 

we will be able to create more good 

jobs in upstate New York so that their 

products can be exported into Colombia. 

Now, there are other States that 

have been particularly hard hit with 

this economic downturn that we’re facing today. States like Ohio. We regularly hear from our colleagues in Ohio 

about the devastation that has existed 

there. One of the great companies in 

Ohio happens to be Whirlpool, and we 

know that right now the hardworking 

H10872 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

men and women in Ohio at the Whirlpool Company want to have an opportunity to sell washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, and other products 

that Whirlpool manufactures. And 

guess what. Under the present structure, Madam Speaker, it’s very unfortunate there is a tariff, a tax, on the 

work product from those American 

workers in Ohio who are seeking to get 

their product into Colombia. And what 

is it that we have had over the last 7 or 

8 months? An indication from the April 

10 decision that was made here to not 

proceed with the U.S.-Colombia Free 

Trade Agreement. There was a sense 

that in this lame duck session we 

would, in fact, consider that. 

Madam Speaker, I would argue that 

as important as it was for us to pass 

that U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement on April 10, it is much, much 

more important today. Why? Because 

we have seen hundreds of thousands of 

our fellow Americans lose their jobs 

and we are here at this moment, at this 

moment, Madam Speaker, talking 

about the imperative of creating jobs 

right here in the United States of 

America so that they don’t flee overseas. 

And I will say that I mentioned Ohio. 

It’s also important. We’re talking 

about the automobile industry. There 

is a company called Caterpillar, which 

is headquartered in Peoria, Illinois. 

And Caterpillar workers are some of 

the most dedicated, hardworking, productive workers of any company in this 

country. And, Madam Speaker, because 

of the existence of that tariff, the 

workers who manufacture Caterpillar 

tractors are unable to sell those tractors into that very important 40 million-strong economy of Colombia because of the fact that we have been recalcitrant and not moved ahead with 

even a debate or a vote on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. 

So, Madam Speaker, I have to say 

that we have a great opportunity with 

this rule. Mr. DIAZ-BALART and I, as I 

said, offered this amendment upstairs 

which would have allowed us to do 

what last April 10—we would have 

never thought last April 10, by the way, 

that we would be here dealing with the 

automobile industry as we are. But last 

April 10 there was an indication by 

many, including the distinguished 

Chair of the Committee on Rules, who 

said that at that point she was voting 

to delay consideration of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. 

Well, Madam Speaker, today is the 

day. We all know and we hope and pray 

that this is the end of the work of the 

110th Congress. The 111th Congress will 

be convening on January 6 and we will 

begin anew. But guess what. If we don’t 

pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade 

Agreement right now, we have thrown 

years of negotiations out the door. We 

will see our governments have to start 

from scratch on this very, very important agreement. 

And the one thing that I haven’t 

mentioned that I know my friend Mr. 

DIAZ-BALART will discuss is the very 

important strategic interest that we 

have in strengthening our strongest 

ally on the South American continent. 

b 1445 

We all recognize that the modern history of Colombia has been horrendous, 

but I argue that the last 5 years have 

brought us the greatest transformation 

of any country in a 5-year period of 

time in modern history. The reason I 

say that is that if you look at the 

human rights violations, if you look at 

the actions of the FARC, the 

paramilitaries, and a wide range of 

other entities there, if you look at the 

murder that has taken place in the 

past of union leaders, and you compare 

that to the changes of today, it is important for us to realize that we have 

seen an amazing transformation. 

Now, I acknowledge that in the past 

several weeks, some very unfortunate 

reports have come to the forefront, but 

I believe that the tragic murders that 

have taken place, and the resignation 

of military leaders and the firing of 

military leaders because of that, underscores how important it is for us to 

proceed with this agreement, which 

will strengthen the economic ties and, 

I believe, bring about a greater opportunity for the recognition of human 

rights in Colombia. 

So we are here at this moment focusing our attention on how it is that we 

can deal with the automobile industry 

and create good American jobs. I believe that right now we have an opportunity to do this very, very important 

thing, and that is open up that market 

so that U.S. workers can sell their 

products into Colombia. I hope very 

much that we are able to see that action taken today. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I 

reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at 

this time I am very happy to yield 3 

minutes to my very good friend, my 

Rules Committee colleague from 

Miami, who joined me in coauthoring 

the amendment about which I was just 

speaking. 

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of 

Florida. I thank my friend, Mr. DREIER, 

and echo his words. 

Madam Speaker, I was hoping that 

we would not see this legislation 

brought forth under a martial law rule 

that is going to change, is going to 

waive, is going to waive the rules of 

the House so that legislation that was 

filed just a little while ago does not 

have 24 hours for the American people 

and the membership of this House to 

review and study. I think that it was 

not necessary to do this. I think it’s 

unfortunate for the martial law rule to 

have been brought forth to close down 

this process absolutely. 

The legislation that the House would 

be considering, obviously, with regard 

to the automobile industry, deals with 

a very important industry. I also believe that, as Mr. DREIER has stated, 

the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement is one step that this Congress 

could and should take that would create jobs for the American people, and it 

would create jobs throughout the entire Nation. I was hoping, Madam 

Speaker, that after the election, and 

the decibels of the electoral debate 

have been turned down, that we could 

have had consideration and a vote on 

that important, implementing legislation, legislation to implement the 

U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. 

It is most unfortunate that the majority leadership has decided, in effect, 

to continue its policy, really, that offends our relationship with our best, 

best ally in South America. It hurts 

that relationship at this critical time, 

in addition to preventing in this delicate economic time, the creation of 

many, many jobs in the United States. 

So it’s most unfortunate that the 

majority leadership has decided to act 

in this irresponsible manner, not only 

closing down, unnecessarily, the process with regard to the legislation 

brought forth today, unnecessarily, but 

failing to consider that most important 

implementary legislation with regard 

to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade 

Agreement. I am disappointed, Madam 

Speaker, and would have hoped that we 

would have seen another attitude after 

the election. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I 

reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at 

this time I am very happy to yield 5 

minutes to the newly elected chairman 

of the Republican Conference, my good 

friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr 

Pence). 

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, we 

come to this floor in the midst of an 

extraordinary time in the life of this 

economy and in the life of our cherished domestic automotive industry. 

The American automotive industry is 

facing a financial crisis. Millions of 

jobs are on the line. Let me say from 

my heart, Madam Speaker, inaction by 

this Congress is not an option, but I 

rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise 

in opposition to the legislation that 

will be brought to the floor under this 

rule, because I believe the American 

people know we cannot borrow and 

spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. 

We cannot borrow and spend and bail 

our way back to a vibrant automotive 

sector here in the United States. The 

legislation that will come before the 

Congress today will take $15 billion in 

taxpayer money and make it available 

to the automotive industry, appoint 

something in the form of a car czar for 

the purpose of organizing and encouraging the kinds of changes in the industry that Washington, D.C. believes 

are appropriate. 

But I would say the bailout proposed 

by the White House and congressional 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10873 

Democrats is fundamentally flawed. It 

exposes the American taxpayer to more 

debt, fails to reorganize our domestic 

auto manufacturers, and does not fix 

the immediate credit crisis that those 

good companies are facing. 

Instead, the Democrat bill will actually prevent the necessary changes and 

force us back into the same situation 

where taxpayers will undoubtedly be 

asked to bail this industry out again 

and again and again. The Democrat 

bailout also seeks to create, as I mentioned, something known as a car czar 

with the responsibilities of making car 

companies more profitable, more fiscally responsible. Well, trusting a 

Washington bureaucrat, who has probably never even tightened a lug nut, 

with fixing what ails the American 

automotive industry is not the answer. 

Today, House Republicans propose 

the American Automotive Reorganization and Recovery Plan. It is an effort 

to lock in the restructuring promised 

over the last few weeks with firm 

benchmarks and a tight timeline. Also, 

in the place of a taxpayer-funded government bailout, House Republicans 

would encourage private investment to 

finance a Detroit recovery in this year 

and the next. It is a solution that will 

protect our domestic auto industry and 

the American taxpayer, and that must 

be paramount in our interest. 

Under the Republican plan, the Big 

Three, having presented their plans for 

restructuring, would be required to 

lock in a tight timeline with a high degree of specificity about the kinds of 

changes that will make our domestic 

auto industry truly competitive and on 

parity with those cherished companies 

that have made foreign investments 

and are manufacturing cars here in the 

United States. 

Secondly, we would establish a process for reaching an expedited agreement. Instead of nationalizing America’s auto companies by having the 

Federal Government take a stake interest in those companies, an equity 

and stock position, we would rather 

say that because of the many legal and 

contractual hurdles to restructuring, 

the companies would be urged to accomplish a restructuring through the 

use of a prepackaged bankruptcy or 

other legal mechanism to bring all 

stakeholders to the table for an agreedupon determination about their future. 

With regard to interim financing, 

again, Madam Speaker, we would not 

look to the Federal Treasury to finance 

a recovery in Detroit, but, rather, we 

would look to the private sector. We 

would create a hand up, not a hand out, 

by creating an FDIC-style insurance 

program where auto companies could 

be required to purchase insurance as a 

backstop to private lending that’s 

made into their industry. Now, many 

of us believe that this would loosen up 

an extraordinary amount of financing, 

the so-called debtor-in-possession financing, which is so scarce in our economy today—so a serious reorganization 

and recovery plan, with hard timelines 

and urgency. 

Secondly, a process using the existing judicial institutions of this country 

to enforce that restructuring; and, 

thirdly, a priming of the pump with a 

new federally backed insurance program to encourage investment in Detroit is the antidote to what ails us. 

Simply handing $15 billion out to Detroit today, however popular it may be 

with some Americans, I believe, in my 

heart, it would ultimately be a disservice to the American taxpayer, to 

our children, and our grandchildren. 

So I urge consideration of the Republican plan, the American Automotive 

Reorganization and Recovery Plan. I 

urge my Democrat colleagues to allow 

such a proposal to come to the floor, 

and I oppose this rule. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire of 

my colleague if he has more speakers. 

Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman 

would yield? 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes. 

Mr. DREIER. I would say, absolutely, 

we have a lot of people who want to 

speak in opposition to this martial law 

rule. I would inquire of my friend if she 

has any speakers. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am the last 

speaker on my side. 

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at 

this juncture, I would like to yield 2 

minutes to our colleague from Gold 

River, California (Mr. LUNGREN). 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it does not 

recognize that occasionally Congress 

does something right. I remember 

being on this floor some 20 years ago 

and debating with then the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Peter Rodino, about 

reform of the Bankruptcy Code and 

specifically chapter 11. 

The question at that time was whether or not we are going to adapt the 

Bankruptcy Code so that chapter 11 

would allow companies large and small 

to restructure themselves so that they 

could go on as enterprising entities, 

but now we are told that somehow 

there is something special about the 

Big Three auto manufacturers in Detroit that will not allow them to go 

through the process that we had Delta 

Airlines go through, that we have had 

very, very many companies go through. 

Somehow, it has been asserted that 

chapter 11 means death and destruction. Chapter 11 doesn’t mean death 

and destruction, it means restructuring and rebirth. 

What happens is, when you go into 

bankruptcy court, everything is on the 

table. What we have heard discussed 

around here, and what’s being presented to us is bankruptcy-lite. It’s 

like bankruptcy, but we are not going 

to require it to be bankruptcy. Why? 

Because, somehow, that doesn’t work. 

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it does 

work. And it doesn’t put the American 

people, the taxpayers, behind promises 

that can’t be kept. Because in a bankruptcy court, the judge requires everybody to put their cards on the table, 

and then a decision is made as to what 

is the best interest of the entity so 

that they may continue to operate. 

So you have to ask yourself, why do 

people not want to go through bankruptcy? Perhaps it’s so that they don’t 

have to do those things that would be 

required to make them enterprising entities. Now we have a circumstance 

where we are going to create a car czar, 

or czarina, to tell the manufacturers 

how they ought to operate their businesses, the ultimate irony, Congress 

telling somebody else how they ought 

to operate their businesses in an economic fashion. 

b 1500 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I 

inquire of the Chair how much time is 

remaining on each side. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 91⁄2 minutes remaining; the 

gentlewoman from New York has 29 

minutes remaining. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at 

this time I am very happy to yield 1 

minute to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, my good 

friend from Livonia, Michigan (Mr. 

MCCOTTER). 

Mr. MCCOTTER. I thank the chairman. I rise in support of the same-day 

rule. 

It has been an anxious holiday season 

in Michigan and the Midwest in the 

auto industry and the manufacturing 

sector. They have seen Congress perform its rightful oversight over their 

request for a bridge loan from the taxpayers of the United States. And today, 

after due deliberation, I think it is appropriate that we have a vote on this 

legislation, because behind all the statistics and all the talk of bankruptcies 

are hard-working people who deserve to 

know an answer to a fundamental question: Does the Congress of the United 

States care about them? 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at 

this time I am very happy to yield 2 

minutes to my friend from Humble, 

Texas, Judge Poe. 

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, well, here 

we go again, rushing into another bailout without appropriate congressional 

hearings. And what have the Big Three 

auto boys done to restructure their 

businesses after they first flew up here 

on their big private jets? Absolutely 

nothing. They just showed up here 

again demanding American money. 

They say they are too big to fail. 

Madam Speaker, they have already 

failed, but they want the American citizen to pay for their mess. 

So with the option before us today, 

we are going to let the Federal Government take over the auto industry and 

even decide what kind of car we should 

build. Not only that, we are going to 

appoint a ‘‘Car Czar’’ to manage how it 

is done. 

The underlying bill gives the ‘‘Car 

Czar’’ complete control over the auto 

industry. Can you imagine what a Federal Government-made car will look 

H10874 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

like? Most likely it will have a sail, 

solar panels, or even a windmill on top. 

It will be the typical Federal project. It 

will be too expensive, won’t work, and 

we will never get rid of it. 

With this bill, we are subsidizing failing companies. It is not the American 

way to subsidize failure. This is just 

like what we continue to do with Amtrak. Taxpayers pay millions of dollars 

every year to subsidize the failing passenger rail industry. So if we like Amtrak, we are going to love the new Federal car industry. 

As President-elect Obama said on 

‘‘Meet the Press’’ Sunday: ‘‘We don’t 

want government to run companies. 

Generally, government historically 

hasn’t done that very well.’’ I agree 

completely. 

What the Big Three need to do is reorganize under the bankruptcy laws to 

prevent failure and job loss, just like 

the airlines did. The Big Three saying 

bankruptcy will cause 100 percent job 

loss is nonsense. It is just the politics 

of fear. 

People say this isn’t a bailout, but 

that is exactly what it is. It is not a 

bridge loan. And if it is a bridge loan, 

then it is a bridge loan to nowhere. 

Folks, this is nothing more than a 

down payment on a future bigger taxpayer-funded corporate welfare bailout. 

And that’s just the way it is. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I 

would like to inquire of the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 

Rules if she might consider yielding, 

she has 29 minutes remaining, maybe 5 

or 10 minutes of her time to us. We 

have a number of speakers on our side. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Would the gentleman tell me how many speakers he 

has and what time is he talking about. 

Mr. DREIER. Maybe 10 minutes of 

time. We have a number of speakers 

who have come, and you know how it 

goes on the management of debate 

here. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. We would really 

like to see this move forward, Mr. 

DREIER. 

Mr. DREIER. I understand you want 

to move this forward as expeditiously 

as possible. We have a lot of Members 

who are hoping very much to have the 

chance to speak on this. We can see 

Members coming in. 

I just, as a courtesy, would like to inquire of the Chair if she would yield us 

maybe 10 minutes of her time. If she 

had speakers, I would completely understand why that wouldn’t be the 

case, but I just don’t see any speakers 

on the other side, and if that would be 

possible, I would very much appreciate 

it. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I 

yield 5 additional minutes. 

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5 additional minutes, for a 

total now of 12 minutes. 

Mr. DREIER. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentlewoman from Rochester for yielding me 

this time. 

At this juncture, I would like to, 

Madam Speaker, yield 2 minutes to our 

hardworking colleague from Harrison 

Township, Michigan (Mrs. MILLER). 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank 

the gentleman for yielding. 

Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong 

support of this rule, because we do need 

to act to support our domestic auto industry, and failure to act by Congress 

on bridge loans to our domestic auto 

industry will have catastrophic effects 

on our workers, on our economy, as 

well as our national security. Inaction 

is simply not an option. 

In recent years, the domestic auto industry has been undergoing significant 

restructuring in an effort to become 

more competitive with foreign automakers. More needs to be done certainly, but to suggest that nothing has 

been done is inaccurate and does not 

recognize the significant sacrifices 

made by workers and the tough decisions made by the Big Three. 

They are also changing their product 

mix to better reflect the current marketplace demand for more fuel efficient 

vehicles. It is not Toyota that offers 

the most models that get over 30 miles 

per gallon. It is General Motors. It is 

not Honda that makes the highest 

mileage SUV in the world. It is Ford 

with the Ford Escape. 

We cannot forget the domestic auto 

industry and what they have meant to 

America. In fact, during World War II, 

southeast Michigan was known as the 

‘‘arsenal of democracy’’ because we literally had the manufacturing capability that led the world to peace by 

building those armaments, and we expanded freedom across the globe. 

Then on September 11, 2001, that horrific day when the terrorists murdered 

nearly 3,000 of our fellow Americans, 

they had an additional goal, and that 

was to destroy our economy. At that 

time, while the Federal Government 

was properly providing bailout support 

to the devastated airlines, it was the 

domestic auto industry, led by General 

Motors and their Keep America Rolling 

Program, which kept customers in the 

showrooms, workers on the factory 

floors, and did indeed keep America 

rolling. 

The cost to our economy of failure of 

one or more of these companies will be 

stark. Experts have indicated that this 

would cause a cascade of bankruptcies 

across the economy and lead to the loss 

of as many as 3 million jobs. The cost 

of this calamity to the taxpayers would 

be multiple times greater than the cost 

of these bridge loans. 

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues 

to look beyond the super-heated rhetoric here and support me in joining 

this rule and this vital industry. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at 

this time I am very happy to yield 3 

minutes to our hardworking former 

Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. 

GINGREY). 

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my former 

chairman of the Rules Committee, the 

ranking member from California, and 

also I want to thank the current chairwoman of the Rules Committee for her 

courtesy in granting our side an additional 5 minutes. 

I rise, Madam Speaker, in opposition 

to the same-day rule, but primarily in 

opposition to the underlying legislation, H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act. 

This bill gives a bailout. I don’t know 

any other way to put it. You can 

euphemistically say it is a ‘‘rescue 

package’’ or whatever, but it’s a bailout. It is a bailout for one particular 

industry, albeit a very important industry, lots of jobs. 

But in my district, the 11th of Georgia, we have a lot of textile manufacturing, and they desperately need help. 

There was language in the Colombian 

Free Trade Agreement that helped the 

textile industry in northwest Georgia. 

But the Democratic majority, this majority, will not allow that bill, that 

trade agreement, bilateral trade agreement to pass. And you know why, 

Madam Speaker? Because Big Labor 

opposes it. 

In this situation that we are dealing 

with now, Big Labor is the entity that 

gains the most from this, and yet they 

are the ones that, in my opinion, 

Madam Speaker, are wrecking the 

automobile industry in the United 

States. When their average cost per 

hour is $77 when the foreign manufacturers that employ the United States 

productive workers can do it for $45 an 

hour, there is something wrong with 

that. 

The solution to this problem is a 

structured bankruptcy just like Delta 

went through in my State of Georgia. 

It was painful, yes, but they are flying 

and are regaining profitability. I would 

trust a bankruptcy judge, a Federal 

bankruptcy judge under chapter 11, 

more than I would trust a czarina or 

czar doing it by the Federal Government. 

I think clearly that is what they 

ought to do, restructure under Federal 

bankruptcy chapter 11, lower those 

costs, renegotiate those contracts and 

deal with the creditors to take less 

than 100 percent of the debt. Then, if it 

doesn’t work, the automobile manufacturers can come back to Congress and 

ask for some additional help. That 

would make sense. But right now, the 

thing for them to do is to restructure 

under chapter 11. 

By the way, Madam Speaker, when 

they do that, management as well as 

labor needs to take a haircut, a significant haircut, in fact maybe even a flattop or a buzz. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at 

this time I am happy to yield 1 minute 

to our very good friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina 

(Ms. FOXX). 

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for 

giving credit to that great area where 

I live. 

I drive GM cars. Everybody in my 

family drives GM cars. My daughter 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10875 

has Ford cars. So we are very sympathetic. I have a lot of great friends who 

are automobile dealers, and I love 

them. They have been very kind to me 

over the years. We are good friends. 

But, folks, this is the wrong direction 

to go. We do not need to be bailing out 

the domestic auto manufacturers. And 

I am opposed to this same-day rule. 

There is an old saying: ‘‘Act in haste 

and repent at leisure,’’ and that is what 

we are going to do. 

We had another bailout here a couple 

of months ago. It was misunderstood, I 

think, as the only option that we had, 

and people said you got to vote, you 

got to vote, you got to do it. That bailout has turned out to be a disaster because we were pushed into it. Things 

didn’t go through regular order. We 

didn’t have time to debate. 

We have alternatives here. As my 

friend from Georgia said, let the companies go bankrupt. Let them reorganize. This is not a bailout of the domestic automobile manufacturers so much 

as it is a bailout of the unions. 

And they are not the only manufacturers. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentlewoman from North 

Carolina has expired. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am 

happy to yield my friend an additional 

30 seconds. 

Ms. FOXX. My colleague from Michigan so eloquently stated that we won 

World War II because of the strong 

manufacturing base we had in this 

country. But these domestic car manufacturers are not the only base that we 

have. We have a great manufacturing 

base. 

And I am opposed to the Federal Government creating the czar position too. 

When in the world has the Federal Government ever done anything better 

than the private sector? Never, that I 

know of. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I 

inquire of my very good friend from 

Rochester one more time if she might 

consider yielding maybe an additional 

5 minutes. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am sorry, Mr. 

DREIER, but I cannot. 

Mr. DREIER. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I ask if the 

gentleman is prepared to close. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me 

just ask my friend, there are no speakers at all on the other side of the aisle 

other than the words of wisdom that 

we are going to be getting from our distinguished committee Chair. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. There are no further speakers on our side. 

Mr. DREIER. I anxiously look forward to those words of wisdom, and, 

pending that, I am going to yield myself the balance of the time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 

for 6 minutes. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we are 

dealing with what is arguably one of 

the most difficult and challenging economic times in modern American history. We have seen the loss of hundreds 

of thousands of jobs over the past several months. President-elect Obama 

has predicted that we are going to see 

more difficult days ahead than we have 

already faced, and the American people 

want us to act and they want us to do 

the right thing. 

We all know that the automobile industry is a very, very important sector 

of the U.S. economy. It is one of the 

most important. We know that the 

housing industry is a very important 

sector of the U.S. economy. Just today, 

I have introduced legislation which is 

designed to encourage people to purchase homes by developing an incentive for them to have equity in those 

homes, because we have a huge backlog 

of homes that need to be sold all across 

this country. The measure calls for a 

tax credit, in fact a refundable credit, 

for people who make a 10 to 15 percent 

down payment on their home. 

Now, why is that the case that we are 

offering this legislation? It is the fact 

that, unfortunately, because of bad 

government policy, and I underscore 

that again, bad government policy, we 

have encouraged people through 

subprime mortgages, the CRA, through 

abuse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

as we saw in yesterday’s hearing, we 

have encouraged people who could not 

afford it to get into homes way, way 

beyond their means, by putting nothing down, and at the same time paying 

subprime interest rates which were 

clearly going to be going up at a day in 

the future. So bad government policy 

created that, in large part because people didn’t have equity in their homes. 

That is why, to deal with this very 

important housing challenge, I have 

today introduced this legislation that 

provides a credit for people who will 

put a down payment and have a vested 

interest in their home and keep that 

home for at least 3 years. 

b 1515 

I’m talking about that, Madam 

Speaker, because we need to use creative measures to deal with the challenges that we face today. I also believe that, as we look at this challenge 

of the automobile industry, we need to 

do the exact same thing. 

This morning I met with a man 

named John Symes, who, in the next 

couple of weeks, will see his automobile dealership mark its 60th anniversary. They’re located in Pasadena, 

California. Mr. Symes and I talked 

about the need for us to, again, look at 

creative ways in which we can encourage, through tax incentives, possibly a 

credit similar to the one that I just introduced today in the housing industry 

to deal with the backlog of automobiles that need to be purchased; so, 

rather than focusing on bailing out the 

industry, the idea of incentivizing our 

fellow Americans to get into the showrooms to have an opportunity to have 

some kind of credit, whether it’s, once 

again, providing an interest deduction 

on the deduction for the interest on 

auto loans or the sales tax deduction, 

those kind of incentives, or some kind 

of credit. We’re in the process of fashioning legislation that I will be introducing soon to deal with that. I know 

that there are other measures that 

have been proposed. 

We need, Madam Speaker, to have a 

creative way to empower our fellow 

Americans, rather than all of a sudden 

taxing our fellow Americans and going 

through and expanding what is already 

existing today, and that is what I will 

describe as ‘‘bailout fatigue’’ among 

our fellow Americans. And it’s very, 

very understandable. And the notion of 

having the Federal Government continue to expand more and more and 

more is just plain wrong. 

I believe that we dealt with this 

issue, in part, with the measure that 

we passed in October. It was designed 

to thaw the frozen credit markets. And 

so a big part of that was for us to do 

everything that we could to unleash 

that. And I believe that if we had not 

passed that measure that we would be 

in more dire straits than we face today. 

So we’ve already taken a step in trying to ensure that people can get into 

those showrooms. I do believe that 

more needs to be done, but I don’t believe this is it. 

And as I said in my remarks earlier, 

Madam Speaker, I also think that the 

indication that we had on April 10 of 

this year that we were going to have an 

opportunity, in a lame duck session, 

which is where we are today, to pry 

open the very, very important market 

of our strongest, closest ally on the 

South American continent, that being 

Colombia, 40 million consumers there, 

so that we can sell Caterpillar tractors 

manufactured by U.S. workers, hardworking Americans, in the State of Illinois and in other States, or Whirlpool 

refrigerators and washing machines 

and dryers that could be sold into Colombia creating jobs in Ohio; and we 

regularly hear our colleagues from 

Ohio and other parts of the country 

talk about the fact that so many of our 

fellow Americans have lost jobs. This 

agreement would do just that. 

Colombian goods can be sold tarifffree in the United States today, Madam 

Speaker, coffee, cut flowers, other 

things that come in from Colombia tariff-free, so they’ve already got access 

to the American consumer. All we’re 

saying is that when last spring we, for 

the first time ever, subverted the 1974 

Trade Act, we have a chance to rectify 

that today. 

I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on 

this martial-law rule and, when we get 

to it ultimately, since I suspect it will 

pass, I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on the next 

rule and the underlying legislation. 

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I 

urge a ‘‘yes’’ vote on the previous question and on the rule. 

I yield back the balance of my time, 

and move the previous question on the 

resolution. 

H10876 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on ordering the previous 

question. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on 

that I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 

H.R. 7321, AUTO INDUSTRY FINANCING AND RESTRUCTURING 

ACT 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 110–922) on the 

resolution (H. Res. 1534) providing for 

consideration of the bill (H.R. 7321) to 

authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for 

other purposes, which was referred to 

the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed. 

f 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 

PRO TEMPORE 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings 

will resume on questions previously 

postponed. 

Votes will be taken in the following 

order: ordering the previous question 

on House Resolution 1533, by the yeas 

and nays; adoption of House Resolution 

1533, if ordered; approval of the Journal, de novo. 

This first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Remaining 

electronic votes will be conducted as 5- 

minute votes. 

f 

WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF 

CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH 

RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF 

CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on House 

Resolution 1533, on which the yeas and 

nays were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on ordering the previous 

question. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 224, nays 

174, not voting 35, as follows: 

[Roll No. 684] 

YEAS—224 

Abercrombie 

Ackerman 

Allen 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Baca 

Baird 

Baldwin 

Barrow 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Berry 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boyd (FL) 

Boyda (KS) 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown, Corrine 

Butterfield 

Camp (MI) 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carson 

Castor 

Cazayoux 

Chandler 

Childers 

Clarke 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costello 

Courtney 

Cramer 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis, Lincoln 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly 

Doyle 

Edwards (MD) 

Edwards (TX) 

Ellsworth 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Etheridge 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Foster 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gillibrand 

Gonzalez 

Gordon 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Hall (NY) 

Hare 

Harman 

Herseth Sandlin 

Higgins 

Hill 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hodes 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Inslee 

Israel 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson-Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Kagen 

Kanjorski 

Kaptur 

Kennedy 

Kildee 

Kilpatrick 

Kind 

Klein (FL) 

Kucinich 

Lampson 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Lynch 

Mahoney (FL) 

Maloney (NY) 

Markey 

Marshall 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum (MN) 

McCotter 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McNerney 

McNulty 

Meek (FL) 

Meeks (NY) 

Michaud 

Miller (MI) 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Mollohan 

Moore (KS) 

Moore (WI) 

Moran (VA) 

Murphy (CT) 

Murphy, Patrick 

Murtha 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal (MA) 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Olver 

Ortiz 

Pascrell 

Pastor 

Payne 

Perlmutter 

Peterson (MN) 

Pomeroy 

Price (NC) 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Rodriguez 

Ross 

Rothman 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Salazar 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schwartz 

Scott (GA) 

Scott (VA) 

Serrano 

Sestak 

Shea-Porter 

Sherman 

Shuler 

Sires 

Skelton 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Solis 

Souder 

Space 

Speier 

Spratt 

Stark 

Stupak 

Sutton 

Tanner 

Tauscher 

Taylor 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Upton 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch (VT) 

Wexler 

Wilson (OH) 

Woolsey 

Wu 

Yarmuth 

Young (AK) 

NAYS—174 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barrett (SC) 

Bartlett (MD) 

Barton (TX) 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Blunt 

Boehner 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boozman 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (SC) 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Buyer 

Calvert 

Campbell (CA) 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carney 

Carter 

Castle 

Chabot 

Coble 

Cole (OK) 

Conaway 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Davis (KY) 

Davis, David 

Deal (GA) 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Drake 

Dreier 

Duncan 

Ehlers 

Emerson 

English (PA) 

Fallin 

Feeney 

Ferguson 

Flake 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Giffords 

Gingrey 

Gohmert 

Goode 

Goodlatte 

Granger 

Graves 

Hall (TX) 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayes 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Hobson 

Hoekstra 

Hulshof 

Hunter 

Inglis (SC) 

Issa 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kline (MN) 

Knollenberg 

LaHood 

Lamborn 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

Lewis (KY) 

Linder 

LoBiondo 

Lucas 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul (TX) 

McCrery 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McKeon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Melancon 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Mitchell 

Moran (KS) 

Murphy, Tim 

Musgrave 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Paul 

Pearce 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe 

Porter 

Price (GA) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Ramstad 

Regula 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Reynolds 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Royce 

Ryan (WI) 

Sali 

Saxton 

Scalise 

Schmidt 

Sessions 

Shadegg 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Stearns 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thornberry 

Tiahrt 

Tiberi 

Turner 

Walden (OR) 

Walsh (NY) 

Wamp 

Weller 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield (KY) 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman (VA) 

Wolf 

Young (FL) 

NOT VOTING—35 

Boucher 

Cannon 

Costa 

Cubin 

Delahunt 

Doolittle 

Ellison 

Emanuel 

Everett 

Fossella 

Gilchrest 

Gutierrez 

Hastings (FL) 

Hooley 

Jefferson 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones (NC) 

Keller 

Kirk 

Kuhl (NY) 

Miller, Gary 

Pallone 

Peterson (PA) 

Pickering 

Pryce (OH) 

Renzi 

Rohrabacher 

Sensenbrenner 

Shays 

Snyder 

Tancredo 

Walberg 

Watson 

Weldon (FL) 

Wilson (NM) 

b 1547 

Messrs. PLATTS, HELLER of Nevada, SULLIVAN and SMITH of Nebraska changed their vote from ‘‘yea’’ 

to ‘‘nay.’’ 

Mr. CAMP of Michigan changed his 

vote from ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’ 

So the previous question was ordered. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the resolution. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on 

that I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 

5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 226, nays 

169, not voting 38, as follows: 

[Roll No. 685] 

YEAS—226 

Abercrombie 

Ackerman 

Allen 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Baca 

Baird 

Baldwin 

Barrow 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Berry 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boyd (FL) 

Boyda (KS) 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown, Corrine 

Butterfield 

Camp (MI) 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carson 

Castor 

Cazayoux 

Chandler 

Childers 

Clarke 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costello 

Courtney 

Cramer 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis, Lincoln 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly 

Doyle 

Edwards (TX) 

Ellsworth 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Etheridge