H10878 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

NOES—170 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Arcuri 

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 

Camp (MI) 

Campbell (CA) 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carney 

Carter 

Castle 

Chabot 

Coble 

Cole (OK) 

Conaway 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Davis (KY) 

Davis, David 

Deal (GA) 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Drake 

Dreier 

Duncan 

Ehlers 

Ellsworth 

Emerson 

English (PA) 

Fallin 

Ferguson 

Flake 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gingrey 

Goode 

Granger 

Graves 

Hall (TX) 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayes 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Hill 

Hobson 

Hoekstra 

Hulshof 

Hunter 

Inglis (SC) 

Issa 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kline (MN) 

Knollenberg 

LaHood 

Lamborn 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (KY) 

Linder 

LoBiondo 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul (TX) 

McCotter 

McCrery 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McKeon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Mitchell 

Moran (KS) 

Murphy, Tim 

Musgrave 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Paul 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson (MN) 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe 

Porter 

Price (GA) 

Putnam 

Ramstad 

Regula 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Reynolds 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Royce 

Sali 

Scalise 

Schmidt 

Sessions 

Shadegg 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Souder 

Stearns 

Stupak 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thornberry 

Tiahrt 

Tiberi 

Turner 

Upton 

Walden (OR) 

Wamp 

Weller 

Westmoreland 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman (VA) 

Wolf 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1 

Gohmert 

NOT VOTING—47 

Boucher 

Butterfield 

Cannon 

Cardoza 

Costa 

Costello 

Cubin 

Davis (IL) 

Delahunt 

Doolittle 

Ellison 

Emanuel 

Everett 

Fossella 

Gilchrest 

Gutierrez 

Hastings (FL) 

Hooley 

Jefferson 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones (NC) 

Keller 

Kirk 

Kuhl (NY) 

Lucas 

Miller, Gary 

Pallone 

Peterson (PA) 

Pickering 

Pryce (OH) 

Radanovich 

Renzi 

Rohrabacher 

Ryan (WI) 

Schwartz 

Sensenbrenner 

Serrano 

Shays 

Snyder 

Spratt 

Tancredo 

Walberg 

Watson 

Weldon (FL) 

Whitfield (KY) 

Wilson (NM) 

Woolsey 

b 1611 

So the Journal was approved. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 7321, AUTO INDUSTRY FINANCING AND RESTRUCTURING 

ACT 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, 

by direction of the Committee on 

Rules, I call up House Resolution 1534 

and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: 

H. RES. 1534 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this 

resolution it shall be in order to consider in 

the House the bill (H.R. 7321) to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile 

manufacturers, and for other purposes. All 

points of order against the bill and against 

its consideration are waived. The bill shall 

be considered as read. The previous question 

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

any amendment thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except: (1) One 

hour of debate equally divided and controlled 

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; 

(2) the amendment printed in the report of 

the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution, if offered by Representative 

LaTourette of Ohio or his designee, which 

shall be in order without intervention of any 

point of order, shall be considered as read, 

shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes 

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 

subject to a demand for a division of the 

question; and (3) one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 7321 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding 

the operation of the previous question, the 

Chair may postpone further consideration of 

the bill to such time as may be designated by 

the Speaker. 

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. 

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such 

time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members may be 

given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 

Resolution 1534. 

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. 1354 provides for consideration 

of H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act. 

Madam Speaker, once again we find 

ourselves meeting under dire circumstances: a shaky stock market, the 

highest unemployment rate in decades, 

the greatest financial crisis we have 

seen in generations. 

Of all the industries that contribute 

to our economy, the automobile industry has been hit particularly hard. The 

steep decline in auto sales emerged 

this past summer when gas prices rose 

to record-breaking levels and the deepening economic recession further reduced consumer demand for automobiles. Now sales have fallen to the 

lowest rate in 25 years. 

The global economic crisis has the 

American auto industry facing an unprecedented liquidity shortfall that 

threatens their viability. Should this 

industry continue its stark descent, or 

in the worst case scenario fail, it would 

have a devastating effect on our Nation’s workforce as well as our overall 

prospects for economic recovery. 

Madam Speaker, the U.S. automobile 

industry is one of the largest sectors of 

our economy. Auto companies directly 

or indirectly support over 4 million 

American jobs and provide nearly 1 

million retirees with pension and 

health care benefits. In western New 

York alone, the auto industry supports 

over 12,000 workers and 13,000 retirees, 

and the failure of major auto companies could cause generations of auto 

workers to lose their hard-earned pensions and health care while causing the 

current livelihood of workers to lose 

their jobs. It would also threaten the 

auto suppliers, the dealers, and other 

related businesses, a domino effect that 

would certainly cripple our economy. 

Furthermore, if the auto industry collapses, experts estimate the U.S. trade 

deficit would grow by over $109 billion 

or 15.6 percent. 

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, America 

cannot afford to let Detroit fail. The 

auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing, and should it unravel, all the government’s work towards stabilizing the financial markets 

would be in vain. It is in our country’s 

best interest, as we work to pull ourselves out of this recession, to ensure 

that our auto industry remains viable 

and competitive. 

For this reason Democrats have met 

this administration at the table to 

work toward a solution to stabilize this 

industry. The bill before us today is an 

important bipartisan step in helping to 

address the crisis that is afflicting not 

only the auto industry but American 

families from coast to coast. 

Our goal with this loan package is to 

strengthen and to restructure the auto 

industry and to ensure viability before 

the crisis further impacts Main Street. 

Since talks began, Democrats have 

fought for key measures to protect the 

American taxpayers. When the automakers first requested funding, Democrats told them to come back with a 

plan to show us how they would restructure the industry in order to 

achieve the viability necessary to 

repay the loan. The package before us 

today now includes several key oversight provisions. By making $14 billion 

available in already appropriated 

loans, the bill will provide a needed 

boost to the overall economy. 

Mr. Speaker, what happens to the 

U.S. auto industry affects us all. The 

three car companies, for example, purchased $156 billion in parts, materials, 

and services last year. Supporting jobs 

in all 50 States, the bill preserves the 

jobs of 355,000 workers in the United 

States directly employed by auto industry and an additional 4.5 million 

Americans working in related industries. 

The bill contains stringent taxpayer 

protections, including authorizing our 

government to take equity stakes in 

the company through stock warrants 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10879 

so that taxpayers can benefit if the 

firms profit and if the value of their 

shares increases in the future. It contains strong, independent oversight 

provisions with oversight by both the 

Government Accountability Office and 

the Inspector General overseeing the 

TARP financial rescue funds. It prohibits carmakers receiving loans from 

owning or leasing corporate jets, and it 

prohibits senior executives from receiving bonuses or ‘‘golden parachute’’ 

severance packages. 

The bill requires the companies to restructure or repay the loans. To ensure 

the companies restructure to achieve 

viability, increase fuel efficiency, and 

reduce emissions, the car czar can require immediate repayment of the loan 

if the company has not made adequate 

progress by February 15 in developing a 

long-term restructuring plan. Companies will not get Federal assistance if 

they fail to submit an acceptable restructuring plan by March 31. 

Importantly, the bill requires shared 

sacrifice. Auto executives, employees, 

labor unions, dealers, suppliers, creditors, and shareholders should and will 

all participate in the restructuring efforts. 

The end result will be a vibrant and 

competitive U.S. auto industry that 

pursues the aggressive production of 

energy-efficient advanced technology 

vehicles and thrives in the 21st century 

global marketplace. 

By insisting on transparency and accountability, Congress is ensuring that 

the auto industry is held accountable 

for this loan and that American taxpayers will get their money back. 

We are grateful also for the work of 

Congresswoman SUTTON of Ohio and 

Congressman LATOURETTE from Ohio, 

who has presented a good amendment 

pertaining to transparency to go along 

with this bill. 

Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation 

to take action today, not to simply 

save the automobile industry but to 

protect the millions of hardworking 

men and women across America whose 

jobs depend on it. We have a responsibility to take action for the line worker in Detroit who works hard every day 

just to put food on the table for his 

family or her family. We have a responsibility to the retiree who depends on 

the pension she earned or he earned 

through decades of hard work and now 

relies on it to survive. We have a responsibility to countless American 

families across this great Nation whose 

livelihoods depend on the auto industry 

whether they realize it or not. And unless we act, the well-being of millions 

will be on the line. From plants to 

parks, dealerships to driveways, and 

gas stations to grocery stores, what 

happens in the automotive industry 

impacts us all. 

Mr. Speaker, we face some daunting 

challenges on our path to economic recovery, but this is a necessary step to 

build a brighter tomorrow. We know all 

too well the consequences of failure, 

which is why it’s critical that we pass 

this package to help get U.S. auto 

manufacturers back on their feet so 

they can be competitive and viable in 

the years ahead. Revitalizing American 

automakers is not only essential to our 

economic and national security, it is 

vital to our fragile economy. And that 

is why the Democrat-led Congress is 

doing everything possible to ensure 

America keeps working and that government keeps working for America. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me 

begin by expressing my appreciation to 

my good friend from Rochester, the 

very distinguished and able Chair of 

the Committee on Rules, Ms. SLAUGHTER, for yielding me the customary 30 

minutes, and with that I yield myself 

such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I am in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying 

legislation. We have a very, very serious economic crisis in this country, as 

we all know. The crisis is demanding 

decisive action on the part of this Congress. The American people are expecting us to take action to try to mitigate 

the suffering that is there today. But 

we also have to be very smart about 

what it is that we do. Hundreds of 

thousands of workers have already lost 

their jobs or on the brink of losing 

their jobs. Hundreds of thousands of 

families have already lost their homes 

or are on the brink of losing their 

homes. We have a profound responsibility to make prudent decisions that 

will help to spur new economic growth, 

create new good jobs for American 

workers, and to strengthen the vitality 

of our economy. We need to restore 

that strengthened vitality that has 

been there and we know is going to 

come back, and it will come back 

quickly if we do the right thing. 

But rushing into an ill-conceived 

bailout of an industry that has not yet 

proven it has a viable plan to remain 

solvent and competitive with the help 

of the taxpayer dollars of hardworking 

Americans who are suffering today 

won’t save a single job. It won’t save a 

single job. And you can look across the 

spectrum of Democrats and Republicans alike who have made it very 

clear that they don’t believe that there 

is a viable plan that has been put forward. 

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the 

proposed bailout that is before us has 

led many Americans to rightly question where will this end? How many 

bailouts are there going to be? 

b 1630 

We know that the American people 

are today suffering from what can only 

be described as bailout fatigue. How 

many billions of our taxpayer dollars 

will be spent? What guarantees do we 

have that the money will be spent 

wisely? 

Congress first took action to reverse 

the economic downturn in October. We 

considered a bill that was intended to 

thaw the frozen credit markets and to 

allow the wheels of our economy to 

begin turning again. I was deeply skeptical of that bill, Mr. Speaker, but I did 

support it reluctantly when key provisions that we fought for were added, 

provisions that banned golden parachutes and ensured scrutiny and accountability for the program. 

The reason for taking this action, as 

we all know, is very simple. Our economy cannot function if the credit markets don’t function. This was not a 

matter of picking winners and losers. 

This was not a matter of caring more 

about workers in the financial services 

industry than workers in other industries. 

The fact of the matter was that our 

credit markets had frozen up, and this 

was paralyzing our economy across the 

board. Failing to deal with the financial industry would have left our entire 

economy crippled, including the very 

auto companies that are now asking 

for a bailout. A failed credit system 

means no one can get a car loan. The 

financial rescue that we did in October 

was, in fact, an auto industry rescue. 

What has been the impact of that 

bill? Mr. Speaker, we simply do not 

know yet. A $13 trillion economy 

doesn’t exactly turn on a dime. And, as 

we all know, half of the money has 

been utilized so far. 

We also know, based on very important questions raised by the chairman 

of the Financial Services Committee, 

who is here, Mr. FRANK, and Mr. BACHUS and others, transparency in this 

whole process has been lacking. 

I am joined with several of my colleagues in the Republican leadership in 

demanding that the Treasury Department provide clear answers on how taxpayer dollars have been spent. We are 

fighting to ensure that there is accountability every step of the way. 

This will be an ongoing process well 

into next year, and we may not know 

the full impact of this bill for many 

months to come. 

It’s quite possible that further responsible action to provide assistance 

will be necessary, but the bill before us 

today asks us to rush into a bailout for 

a single industry with billions more in 

taxpayer dollars on the line. It asks us 

to start picking and choosing winners 

in this very difficult economic time. 

Mr. Speaker, we all have car dealerships in our districts. We all have thousands of constituents whose jobs are directly or indirectly tied to the auto industry. We know the figure of one in 10 

jobs is tied to the auto industry. 

But before we rush into a costly bailout, we have to consider a few things. 

First, we have to consider whether U.S. 

auto companies are prepared to transform themselves into an innovative 

and competitive industry. They made 

an attempt to answer this question in 

congressional testimony just last 

week, but they have a very long way to 

go. A nearly century-old industry 

doesn’t transform itself overnight. We 

need a far more convincing plan from 

them on how they will do so in a matter of months. 

H10880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

Second, we need to consider our economy at large. Playing favorites with 

one industry over another is a dangerous game that won’t necessarily put 

us back on sound economic footing. 

None of us wants to see autoworkers 

losing their jobs, but neither do we 

want to see workers in other industries 

lose their jobs. Our first and only economic priority should be pursuing a 

pro-growth strategy that provides new 

opportunity throughout our entire 

economy. 

Finally, we have to consider the diverse and complicated landscape of the 

auto industry. The question of what is 

an American car used to be a very simple one. That’s no longer the case. 

Mr. Speaker, which is more American? The Ford built in Mexico or the 

BMW built in South Carolina? What 

about the Chevy built with Japanese 

parts and assembled in Canada? How do 

we pick and choose winners in a diverse 

industry that involves foreign investment, American workers and a global 

supply chain? 

Is the Toyota plant worker in Kentucky less valuable to the U.S. economy than the Ford worker in Detroit? 

What about the auto parts supplier in 

Illinois that ships to Mitsubishi, Honda 

or Mazda, all of which create jobs right 

here in the United States of America? 

This is a very complicated matter, 

and we must very carefully consider 

the consequences of our picking and 

choosing the winners and the losers. 

We certainly can’t resolve the issue effectively by simply throwing money at 

our problems. Instead, we should be 

considering better alternatives, like 

creating tax incentives for car purchases, by enabling Americans to give 

the auto industry a boost so we can relieve the tax burden on families and 

help all workers in the industry. 

Unfortunately, this rule, like so 

many of the rules that we have seen 

come forward in this Congress, completely shuts out the kind of real debate that we need. It’s their way or the 

highway. 

Unfortunately, their way offers nothing but wasted billions and false promises. 

The American people want to know 

that we are working to restore our 

economy, but they demand that we act 

wisely, spend their tax dollars prudently and ensure accountability for 

every penny. This bill fails on all three 

of those counts. 

I urge my colleagues to reject this 

rule and the underlying legislation. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 

balance of my time. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who has worked extremely 

hard on this bill, Mr. FRANK. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, we are about to see the great 

majority of Republicans deliver both 

orally and then, by their votes, a stunning vote of no confidence—but not in 

the automobile industry—in the Bush 

administration. 

This is a bill that was brought forward in consultation with President 

Bush and his chief aides. The funding 

mechanism here is one that was insisted upon by the President. The 

amount of money and the source of the 

money complied entirely with the 

wishes of the Bush administration. 

Now, one set of questions raised 

about this bill has to do with the administration of the TARP Program, 

once again, by the Bush administration. I believe that is too harsh. I believe we would have been worse off had 

we not passed that. Yes, I have some 

criticisms of it, but let’s be very clear. 

This bill takes the Bush administration’s proposal about how to fund this, 

and in turn gives to the Bush administration now, if it becomes law, significant power to begin the process of restructuring the automobile industry. 

As I said, much of what we heard is a 

lack of confidence in this administration. Now, we were told that it’s going 

to put a lot of taxpayer money at risk. 

My friend from California said don’t 

pick winners and losers. 

Well, may I ask then, Mr. Speaker, 

how we would characterize the decision 

to give well over $100 billion to AIG? 

Were they not a winner in this? If they 

were a loser, I should be such a loser at 

$100 billion. Six plus times as much 

money as being authorized here to be 

lent to the auto industries was lent to 

AIG. 

Is there a certainty that the auto industry is going to pay it back? No, no 

more than there is with AIG. In fact, I 

think a little bit more. But AIG, that’s 

not an industry, that’s a company. 

That one company received over $100 

billion. 

I also disagree with those who would 

say, as apparently a Republican subgroup says, well, the way to deal with 

that is to take the wages that were 

bargained collectively over time by the 

unions in these three companies and 

drop them to some other level. I don’t 

remember anybody saying, now, we 

have all agreed that CEO compensation 

and money for the top people should be 

restrained. 

But the average worker at AIG 

makes more money than an auto worker. The average worker at Citigroup, 

the recipient, again, of a large amount 

of money, makes more than an auto 

worker. Does anybody remember 

Citigroup being told that as a condition of this money they have to get no 

more than a community banker would 

get? That may be a fair standard, but 

why is it only applied to blue-collar 

workers? Why is it that this insistence 

on leveling down the wages of people 

whose companies receive loan funds 

only applies to people who do this 

physical work? 

I agree with the gentleman from 

California. There was a great reason to 

do the financial services bailout, because financial services are important, 

and I agree with him as well. That 

helps the auto industry. 

People buy cars on credit. An occasional buyer will come into an auto 

sales room to buy a car with cash. He 

generally wants bulletproof windows 

and special getaway mechanisms. Most 

people are buying it on credit, and 

that’s because, as we have said, not 

that they are too big to fail, but too 

interconnected. But so is the auto industry. The gentleman himself talked 

about the suppliers elsewhere. This is 

an industry that has an enormous nationwide impact. 

But, finally, what are we doing here? 

We are lending them $15 billion. We are 

lending them $15 billion that is to be 

repaid, if by March 31 they haven’t 

been able to persuade the new administration’s appointee that they are making very fundamental changes. The bill 

says look for changes from the workers, but also from the bondholders and 

also from the suppliers and also from 

the dealers. 

Let’s not single out those who work 

with their hands as the only ones who 

might be accused of unjust enrichment, 

because they ain’t rich. So that’s the 

proposal, $15 billion if they can show 

that they are making these reductions. 

By the way, we regret the fact that 

the President insists on taking money 

that we had set aside to help them become more innovative. We will replenish that. I think the Speaker deserves 

a great deal of credit for yielding in 

that way, but in a way that would protect this point. 

But the $15 billion comes with super 

seniority or very serious collateral. On 

March 31, either this Congress will 

have to vote more money, there is no 

more automatic money, this Congress 

will vote more money, and we will have 

a chance to make changes in the bill if 

we think it’s necessary, or we will have 

to repay the $15 billion with a great 

deal of seniority in debt preferable to 

any other debtor and with high collateral. Yes, we are acting quickly. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

SERRANO). The time of the gentleman 

has expired. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 11⁄2 additional minutes. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We are 

in a crisis. They were having problems. 

Like a lot of other entities in America, 

including the job market in general 

and banks, the deterioration has been 

more rapid than anyone had anticipated. And, yes, they now face the potential of financial collapse more 

quickly than anticipated. 

If we had known in September what 

we knew today, we could have begun 

acting back then. What we are doing is 

an interim measure. Fifteen billion 

dollars is a short-term fix, $15 billion 

that will be repaid. It’s not the hundreds of billions that we talk about 

with Citigroup or the over $100 billion 

that we talk about with AIG, it’s a lot 

of money, but it’s money that will be 

repaid. It gives us a chance, particularly the new administration and this 

Congress to figure out what can be 

done. If by March 31 it is clear that 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10881 

pessimism has prevailed and nothing 

can be done, we will get the $15 billion 

back. 

But, finally, as to the rule, my understanding when I went up to testify before the Rules Committee, I was told 

there was one amendment that had 

been offered by the minority, and it 

has been made in order, and I plan to 

vote for it. 

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 

to the gentleman from California. 

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for 

yielding. I thank him for his very 

thoughtful statement. 

I would say that the distinguished 

Chair of the Committee on Rules just 

described that amendment as a Democratic amendment. She described it as 

the Sutton-LaTourette amendment, 

and so I suspect that—— 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I 

will now say, Mr. Speaker, that I am 

sorry I yielded for that bit of trivia. It 

was offered to me as the LaTourette 

amendment. I thought it was a Republican amendment. 

You know, at a time when we are all 

trying to get out of here, why we would 

waste time on that kind of trivia I 

don’t understand. 

So let me say I believe that given 

that this is a short-term emergency, 

we will have time to reconsider. The 

consequences of defeating this bill 

would be disaster for an economy that 

is already in terribly indecent shape. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

my friend from Massachusetts for leaving all the trivia to those of us on the 

Rules Committee. 

With that, I am happy to yield a 

minute to my good friend from 

Livonia, Michigan, the Chair of the Republican Policy Committee, Mr. 

MCCOTTER. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, just 

two quick points, one is the funding 

was already brought up by the ranking 

member of Financial Services. We will 

hear a lot from my side of the aisle 

about how much money we are saving 

the taxpayers. 

I would remind those who voted to 

appropriate this into the low-interest 

energy loans to help cover the unfunded CAFE mandate that that appropriation is gone. It is either going to go 

to help the auto industry survive a liquidity crisis, or it will be expended 

elsewhere. There is no savings there. 

Secondly, I would like to remind everyone in the room that your love for 

the taxpayers should also extend to the 

hardworking men and women, be they 

white collar or blue collar that work in 

the auto industry in the United States, 

that work in the manufacturing sector 

in the United States, and whose social 

costs, through a cavalier and calloused 

approach to bankruptcy, will be borne 

by the very taxpayers of the United 

States, except there will be one difference, they will be out of work and 

will no longer be taxpayers. 

b 1645 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me take 30 

seconds, please, Mr. Speaker, to explain this is Mr. LATOURETTE’s amendment. Mr. LATOURETTE brought it up. I 

mentioned Ms. SUTTON’s name. She is 

Mr. LATOURETTE’s neighbor and his 

friend, and she talked to the Democrats about it to make Mr. 

LATOURETTE in order. 

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 

gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN). 

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

Mr. LEVIN. The test isn’t in our 

rhetoric, but what action we propose, 

and for the gentleman from California, 

his action plan is bankruptcy. Bankruptcy. The suggestion is go into chapter 11. 

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman 

yield for just a moment? I never advocated bankruptcy. 

Mr. LEVIN. Essentially that is being 

proposed by the minority. 

Mr. DREIER. Well, you concluded 

that, but I never actually said that. 

Mr. LEVIN. By some in the minority. 

They are saying do chapter 11. Mr. 

DREIER, that is bankruptcy. 

Mr. DREIER. I understand that chapter 11 is bankruptcy, but I am just saying that I have not advocated that. 

Mr. LEVIN. Many on your side are. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will 

the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LEVIN. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Bankruptcy has been the primary argument 

I have heard as the preferred alternative from the Republican Members of 

the committee I chair. 

Mr. LEVIN. And not from all. We 

hope for a bipartisan effort. We worked 

with the White House. It is interesting 

that now we face opposition, though 

the White House has said action is necessary; the President-elect has said action is necessary; the Speaker has said 

action is necessary; the majority leader in the Senate has said action is necessary. And now what many are saying 

on the other side in this House is bankruptcy, chapter 11. Chapter 11 will lead 

to chapter 7. 

I just want to quote from a few documents that say that. A recent study by 

the Anderson Economic Group says, 

‘‘It would be four times more expensive 

for a bankruptcy proceeding than a 

Federal bridge loan.’’ 

Also J.P. Morgan, I want to read this, 

their analysis: ‘‘Without government 

support, we believe auto suppliers will 

tighten terms, causing Big Three bankruptcy filings. Due to a potential sales 

decline and fixed-cost absorption 

issues, we expect a chapter 11 reorganization would rapidly move to liquidation.’’ 

Look, this is complex. But what isn’t 

complex is the essential continuation 

of a domestic auto industry. 

Mr. DREIER says don’t play favorites. 

Winners and losers. Doing nothing to 

help the domestic industry is playing 

favorites. 

So I suggest we look at what is involved here. This bill proposes strong 

oversight. All parties will come to the 

table, all parties, without chapter 11, 

without chapter 7; all parties will be 

brought to the table and taxpayers will 

be protected. 

Let me just say what is at stake 

here. We are talking about millions of 

people. We are talking about people 

who work in the factories and people 

who manage them. We are talking 

about suppliers. If one of the Big Three 

goes down, the supplier network will be 

devastated, and all those who sell automobiles and all those who are involved 

indirectly in the economy. 

So I just urge, the time for rhetoric 

is gone. Why is this going so fast, Mr. 

DREIER? It is because there is an international economic and national credit 

crisis. Every country that has an automobile industry is now helping them. 

Rushing? It doesn’t matter whether 

they are conservative or liberal or socialist; all of the other countries are 

moving to help. 

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman be 

willing to yield? I will be happy to 

yield an additional 30 seconds. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. DREIER. I would like to yield 

the gentleman 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, 

if I might, and I ask him to yield to 

me. 

Mr. LEVIN. Yes. 

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for 

yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I 

believe this notion that you inferred I 

said do nothing is in fact discriminating against the domestic auto industry. It seems that people did, I am 

happy to say, listen to my statement. 

I advocate taking action that would 

provide a tax credit to get people to 

the showroom so they can in fact purchase automobiles. 

Mr. LEVIN. Let me take my time 

back, because the main proposal, as 

Mr. FRANK has said, from some on the 

minority side is bankruptcy. Let me 

just finish and I will ask for an additional 30 seconds, if I might. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will be happy to 

yield the gentleman an additional 

minute. 

Mr. LEVIN. Every country with an 

auto industry is helping. You can call 

it rushing. The German Government. 

Mr. DREIER. I believe we are doing 

that in fact by providing incentives to 

get people in the showroom. 

Mr. LEVIN. I didn’t yield. Look: 

There is nothing that you proposed 

that would help like a bridge loan so 

the companies would survive, so that 

there could be continued restructuring 

that they have started. 

Germany, the European Commission 

is being requested for $50 billion. This 

bill is $15 billion. Brazil, $3 billion. Argentina. Even China, because of this 

credit crunch, is now saying they are 

going to help their industry. 

Essentially what is being proposed by 

those who oppose this is paralysis. We 

H10882 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

need action to help bridge. They have 

started on restructuring. They have a 

long ways to go. It is up to us to provide this bridge to the future. These 

domestic companies are moving on 

electric cars, on hybrids. Don’t shut 

them down when they want to move 

ahead. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself 30 seconds to respond to my 

very good friend from Detroit on this 

issue. 

I will say, Mr. Speaker—— 

Mr. LEVIN. I am not from Detroit. I 

am from Michigan. 

Mr. DREIER. Excuse me? 

Mr. LEVIN. I am not from Detroit. I 

am from Michigan. And this is a national issue, not a Michigan or Detroit 

issue. 

Mr. DREIER. Okay. I don’t know how 

much of my 30 seconds has expired, Mr. 

Speaker, but let me just say in response that we all recognize the gravity of this situation. We know how 

very important it is for us to deal with 

this, and I believe we would in fact be 

taking governmental action if we were 

to incentivize our fellow Americans to 

get into showrooms today so they 

would have the kind of incentive that 

is necessary to purchase automobiles. 

So we are advocating taking action. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like 

to yield 2 minutes to my very good 

friend from Harrison Township, Michigan (Mrs. MILLER). 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank 

the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my 

colleague from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) 

and Macomb County. We share a county together. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong 

support of this rule and in very, very 

strong support of the underlying legislation. Today this House is beginning 

to take action to provide our domestic 

auto industry with a bridge loan to 

help them through these very difficult 

times. 

Some of my colleagues engaged in 

this debate have described this as a 

bridge loan to nowhere. Well, it is my 

opinion that those Members have a 

very bad map, a very, very bad map. In 

fact, these are bridge loans to better 

times, to a stronger auto industry that 

will build the high-tech vehicles of the 

future and will protect millions of good 

jobs in America. 

What Members should know is that 

the road of inaction is a road to economic abyss; the road to the loss of as 

many as 3 million jobs; the road to the 

destruction of the domestic manufacturing base which has formed the arsenal of democracy; a road to a deeper 

and more protracted recession that will 

negatively impact every community 

across this Nation. As was said, this is 

not just a Detroit problem, a Michigan 

problem; this is an American problem. 

And a detour from the bridge loan of 

assistance to the domestic auto industry to the road of inaction, that is a 

dead end. 

I will choose the bridge to more jobs, 

the bridge to advanced technology, the 

bridge to a vital industry base and to a 

brighter future, and I urge my colleagues to join me on that trip. I urge 

them to support this rule, to support 

the underlying bill, and to demonstrate 

that this Congress does care about 

Main Street, not just Wall Street. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair will note that the gentlewoman 

from New York has 10 minutes left and 

the gentleman from California has 171⁄2

minutes left. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. 

Speaker. I yield 2 minutes of that time 

to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 

KUCINICH). 

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the 

gentlelady. I rise in support of the rule 

and the underlying bill. 

The underlying proposition is this: 

Should the United States have an auto 

manufacturing industry? That is really 

what we are deciding here. Because if 

this rule and/or bill goes down, we are 

faced with an untenable condition 

which will lead to the collapse of our 

automotive making capacity, and, according to some economic policy analysts, the elimination of over 3.3 million jobs across the economy, jobs that 

are affected directly and indirectly by 

the automotive industry. 

I think it is important for us to step 

back and look at the context of this. 

Are we intending to stay a great nation, a world power, or are suddenly we 

retreating from the world stage? Because an America without an automobile industry is also going to be an 

America without a steel industry. We 

are already seeing our aerospace and 

our shipping industry affected. 

It is time for us to have a national 

economic policy which says that the 

maintenance of automotive, steel, 

aerospace and shipping is vital to our 

national security; not just to our economy, but our security. 

Sixty-seven years ago, when the 

United States was attacked, it was 

those industries which enabled us to be 

able to defend ourselves. Now, I am a 

person who stands for peace, but I also 

believe in preparedness. To me, it is 

unthinkable that a United States 

which was able to mobilize its productive capacity would suddenly throw it 

away. 

We have to remember that our ability to make things is vital to being a 

great nation, and we have to remember 

that this is a moment that we should 

be able to rise to this occasion. It is a 

tragedy just that we have to debate 

something that is a proposition about 

whether or not we remain a strong Nation. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to 

give the gentleman another minute. 

Mr. KUCINICH. I appreciate that. 

You are actually talking about only 2 

percent of the amount of money given 

for the Wall Street bailout, which I 

spoke against and voted against. This 

is an altogether different proposition. 

We cannot totally reject industrial 

capitalism and remain a great nation. 

There are a lot of questions about finance capitalism which the $700 billion 

bailout has brought out. But we have 

to have the ability to make things. 

And we cannot ask auto workers to 

work for nothing. We have to have the 

ability to make things, and we also 

have to have the ability to see automotive in the scheme of a broader industrial policy. 

Let’s remember who we are as a nation. With all of our troubles, trials 

and tribulations, this is still the greatest nation in the world. What keeps us 

there? Our ability to make things; to 

make cars, to make steel, to make 

planes, to create ships. That is what 

helps to make America great. Let’s not 

give that up. Let’s not let this moment 

pass and decide, well, this is just a trivial matter of $14 billion or $15 billion. 

This is a question of who we are as a 

nation. Let’s be strong. Let’s vote for 

this bill. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time I am very happy to yield 4 minutes, which I hope he will fill, to the 

gentleman from Indianapolis, my good 

friend, Mr. BURTON. 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the 

gentleman for yielding, and I just want 

to say to Mr. KUCINICH and all the previous speakers, I agree with most of 

what I have heard today, except the 

way we get there. I don’t think anybody in the House or the Senate wants 

the auto industry and related industries to collapse. Nobody wants that. 

The question is, how do we get to a solution that is workable, that will work 

over the long term? 

Just a few weeks ago we passed the 

TARP bill, and we were told in just a 

day or two that we had to pass this or 

the entire financial system in this 

country and the world was going to 

collapse. We threw $700-plus billion at 

it, and today there are an awful lot of 

Members in both bodies that think, 

hey, it isn’t working the way we 

thought it would. Things have gone 

south in a lot of areas, and we should 

have thought about this a little more 

carefully. 

Now, I had the mayor of Marion, Indiana, and a lot of GM executives come 

in to see me last week and they told 

me in Marion, Indiana, they would lose 

$5 million in tax revenue if these companies go under. 

b 1700 

And they would have to lay off firemen and policemen and other civil employees. Nobody wants that to happen. 

But how do we solve the problem long 

term? 

And my concern is we’re throwing $15 

billion at this right now without a solution. We’re going to have these people come to the conference table after 

we give them $15 billion, just like we 

gave the $700 billion a few weeks ago in 

the TARP plan, and we’re going to say, 

now go solve the problem and come up 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10883 

with an answer. We need to have these 

answers first, and then give them the 

money. 

I don’t mind staying here through 

Christmas and New Years to find a solution to save the automobile industry 

and the related industries. But this 

isn’t the way, in my opinion, to do 

that. 

Now, you know, Senator CORKER, in 

the other body, said, here’s the way 

that we ought to solve the problem; 

and I’d like to read this to my colleagues. He said, Number 1, the manufacturers should give existing bondholders 30 cents on the dollar to help 

reduce their overall debt. Right now 

they’d only get 13 cents on the dollar, 

so 30 cents on the dollar would make 

them happy, and they would agree to 

that. And Senator CORKER said this 

ought to be one of the things that’s in 

the plan. 

Second, he said, wages should immediately come in-line with the transplant companies. And I think everybody that thinks about this realizes 

that if your cost of doing business is 

not competitive with your opposition, 

you’re not going to survive. So that’s 

an essential thing, in my opinion. 

Third, the UAW should take half of 

GM’s payment in the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association in GM 

stock; and I think they should do that 

because they’re in this thing with everybody else, and taking half of their 

benefits in stock would be a great 

thing. And I think they would enjoy 

doing that if they knew the company 

was going to survive. And they want it 

to survive. 

And finally, the Jobs Bank program 

should be eliminated. He said, if you 

had these four things as a starting 

point, we could get on with the business of solving this problem. 

Now, at the hearing in the Senate 

Banking Committee the other day, 

Mark Zandi, who is the Chief Economist and Co-Founder of Moody’s Economic Guide said, testified, ‘‘under the 

most likely outlook for the economy 

and the auto industry, the restructuring plans in which the Big Three 

have requested $35 billion in loans,’’ at 

that time it was $34 billion, ‘‘will not 

be sufficient for them to avoid bankruptcy at the same point in the next 2 

years. They would ultimately need another 75 to $125 billion to avoid bankruptcy.’’ 

Now, we need to solve this problem. I 

want to help those employees. I want 

to help the executives. I want to help 

the communities that will suffer if 

they lose the tax revenues from these 

people who would lose their jobs and if 

the industry went south. I want to 

solve it. But rushing to judgement 

today, just like that, and throwing $15 

billion at it, without a solution, in my 

opinion, is the wrong way to go. 

So I’d just like to say to my colleagues, if you really want to solve this 

problem long term, let’s don’t rush to 

judgment today. Let’s stick around 

here a few more days and work this out 

so we can really solve the problem long 

term so the industry can survive. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve my time, 

Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for his 

first floor speech since being elected 

our new Republican whip, I am happy 

to yield 2 minutes to my very good 

friend from Richmond, Mr. CANTOR. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I too rise 

with a lot of concern over what is 

about to happen on the floor of this 

House. Clearly, there are many in this 

country who are reeling because of job 

layoffs, insecurity in terms of their 

economic outlook, insecurity as far as 

their health care is concerned. We have 

got a set of problems, I think, unprecedented in this country, at least in our 

generation. We’ve got to remain focused on trying to solve problems. 

And frankly, I think that the bill 

coming to the floor, otherwise known 

as the auto bailout, is just not the 

right way for us to go. I can’t think of 

anything more nonsensical than replacing those in Detroit who have not 

been able to make a success out of the 

auto companies and replace them with, 

frankly, bureaucrats who are subject to 

the whim of the politicians here in 

Washington. It just doesn’t make 

sense. 

If private investors are not convinced 

of the Big Three restructuring plans, if 

they don’t think they’re realistic 

enough, then why in the world would 

we ask the taxpayers to step in to provide that kind of assistance? 

The Big Three restructuring plan and 

the majority’s proposal downright lack 

accountability. How do we know, what 

is the guarantee that the taxpayer 

money, that the restructuring promises will occur? 

Once the taxpayers enter the game 

there will be a big incentive for the 

taxpayers to continue to prop up what 

could very well be a continuing failed 

enterprise. That’s why we have to lock 

in the restructuring now. The restructuring shouldn’t happen in a matter of 

months; it should happen in a matter 

of days or weeks. 

And as the gentleman from Indiana 

spoke, there is certainly an ability for 

us to see this restructuring take place, 

concessions on the side of management, on labor, on the bondholders. 

And frankly, we’ve got a role here in 

Washington that, if the Big Three are 

serious in their restructuring efforts, 

we can provide an alternative, a backstop, a guarantee for debtor-in-possession financing if they were to enter 

some type of pre-packaged bankruptcy. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may 

I inquire from my colleague how many 

other speakers he has? 

Mr. DREIER. I have absolutely no 

idea how many speakers we have left, 

but at this juncture, four, five, something like that, I would guess. How 

many speakers does my friend have 

left? 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Two, I believe. 

And I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. SHERMAN). 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I’d like 

to take this opportunity to clarify two 

provisions in the bill through a colloquy with its author, the distinguished chairman of the Financial 

Services Committee. 

First is section 11(e)(2)(B), which provides certain powers to the so-called 

Car Czar. And I’d like to clarify that 

that would include the power to prohibit a plant closure. Is that correct, 

Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. I 

would have to demur from being the 

author. I do want to give equal billing 

to my coauthor, George W. Bush. But 

having said that, I do believe that we 

agree that the provision has exactly 

the meaning the gentleman says, to 

prevent a closure or anything else of 

that sort. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I know, as a matter 

of legislative history, it’s Congress 

that writes bills, and I hope that any 

signing statement—— 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, we 

vote on bills. They write them. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The second provision 

I’d like to clarify is section 12(b)(3). It’s 

my understanding that this prohibits 

the granting of stock options and prohibits a bonus, even if that bonus is referred to as a retention payment. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, a 

bonus would be in addition to compensation, and it could be in Crown 

Victorias, or it could be in stock, or it 

could be anything else. And of course 

we do empower the administrator to be 

appointed by the President. 

I did want to comment briefly. The 

gentleman from Virginia, apparently, 

once again, no confidence in the President. The President is given the power, 

under this bill, to appoint someone 

with great power, and he says things 

need to be done in a few days and apparently doesn’t trust George Bush to 

do it. 

But the answer is that the bill does 

empower those restrictions to be any 

kind of compensation. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the distinguished chairman. 

We have seen the Fed and the Treasury provide $7 trillion in expenditures 

and in risk assumption as part of the 

economic bailout. In contrast, we can 

keep the automobile industry alive 

until the next administration through 

an expenditure of somewhat over $14 

billion, a risk of only $14 billion. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 11⁄2 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So a $14 billion 

bridge loan seems rather small in light 

that all this administration, the Fed 

and the Treasury have done. Keep in 

mind that Germany, Japan, Korea, 

China, France, every nation with an 

automobile industry is doing far more 

to protect their automobile industry 

than we are by providing 14 to $15 billion of bridge financing. That is why I 

will vote for the rule and for the bill. 

But this is far from a perfect bill. 

H10884 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

Due to the efforts of the administration, we are now limited to receiving 

warrants worth only 20 percent of what 

we are investing. The original text of 

the bill mandated that Treasury could 

seek more than 20 percent. Given the 

risks that we are taking in lending 

money to General Motors and Chrysler, 

we should be getting far more than 20 

percent warrants, and certainly the bill 

should not limit us to that. But the administration, in its generosity to the 

automakers, limits this to 20 percent 

warrants. 

Second, this bill should prevent the 

auto companies from suing against the 

California tougher standards for air 

emissions and for global warming and 

higher standards for fuel economy. 

These companies should be trying to 

meet those higher standards, not suing 

to prevent them. 

Finally, the bill does prevent the 

companies from owning luxury planes, 

but allows them to charter luxury jet 

aircraft. So I know the auto companies 

will be back, and I hope they fly commercial. We’ll fine-tune this bill in the 

spring. Let’s vote for it now. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to 

my good friend from Wantage, New 

Jersey (Mr. GARRETT). 

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. 

Speaker, I come to the floor having always had an open mind with regard to 

this whole auto situation, and how we 

make sure the United States stays 

strong as a manufacturing country. 

The chairman of the Financial Service Committee talks about having to 

move this along very quickly. But 

oddly enough, it was just last week, I 

believe, when he was asked by reporters on this and he said, you know, 

these deadlines that are being imposed 

are really artificial deadlines. And referring back to the TARP situation, he 

said, in that situation, even though the 

deadlines may pass, the sun still did 

come up the next day. And yet these 

are deadlines we’re facing. And I think 

what we would ask to look at is how is 

Congress operating. 

Let me give you a couple of examples. In July of this year, I think it 

was, we passed several hundred billion 

dollars for a housing bailout, and then, 

after that, we had some hearings on it 

on how we’re going to spend the 

money. 

This fall we passed a $700 billion 

TARP program to bail out the financial industry. That started out as two 

or three pages. It grew to several hundred pages. It was only today that we 

finally had a hearing on the oversight, 

again, on seeing how that money was 

about to be spent, lambasting the administration for not doing enough. 

It was just yesterday, for the first 

time, that we basically had hearings on 

the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac. Again, the government bailed 

them out to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Months later we 

had hearings on it. 

What is the trend here? The way the 

Federal Government seems to operate 

is we appropriate, we spend hundreds of 

billions of dollars, then after the fact 

we come back and say, gee, what exactly did we do? 

I think our side of the aisle is saying, 

let’s take it down a little bit, work a 

little bit slower, and make sure what 

we do is appropriate. 

You know, Steve Moore from the 

Wall Street Journal did an unscientific 

little survey. He walked around the 

Hill and the parking lots in the Hill, 

and he looked at the cars that the 

Members of Congress operate. You 

know what he found out? Two-thirds of 

those cars are foreign cars, not American cars. So it’s interesting that we 

come to the floor here today and we 

ask to spend taxpayers’ dollars on 

these cars when the members of their 

own party—— 

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Sure, I 

will yield. 

Mr. DREIER. I would argue that 

those are, in fact, American cars, based 

on the description that we have here 

because no one knows exactly what an 

American car is. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my 

friend an additional 30 seconds. And if 

the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield. 

Mr. DREIER. As I’ve said, what is an 

American-made car? Is it, in fact, a 

Chevy that is built in Canada made 

with Mexican parts, or is it a BMW 

built in South Carolina? 

And I thank my friend for yielding. 

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And 

the gentleman makes an excellent 

point, and Steve did as well, just saying when it comes down to what we’re 

doing here on the floor of course very 

clearly we know whose money we’re 

spending. Some people say does the 

money come from TARP; does the 

money come from the energy bill? It 

doesn’t matter which line you take it 

out of the Federal budget, at the end of 

the day it all comes out of the taxpayers’ pockets. And I encourage us to 

take a moment to make sure that we 

do it in an effective way that actually 

gets the job done, gets the restructuring of the industry and does not put 

the American taxpayer on the hook. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to 

the former Presidential candidate from 

Surfside, Texas (Mr. PAUL). 

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

Mr. PAUL. I rise in opposition to the 

rule and the underlying legislation. It 

doesn’t take a whole lot to convince 

me that we are on the wrong track 

with this type of legislation. And at 

great risk of being marginalized, I 

want to bring up a couple of issues. One 

is that if one were to look for guidance 

in the Constitution, there’s no evidence 

that we have the authority to take 

funds from one group of Americans and 

transfer it to another group who happen to need something. 

And the moral argument is it’s not 

right to do so. Why should successful 

Americans be obligated to take care of 

those who have made mistakes? 

But those two arguments in this 

Chamber are rather weak arguments, 

so I will try to talk a little bit about 

economics. I think what we’re doing 

here today and what we’ve done here 

for the last week has been, essentially, 

a distraction. We’re talking about 

transferring funds around, $15 billion 

that’s been authorized. It’s been designated to do some other interventions 

that were unnecessary in the car industry. And in a way, this legislation 

probably could have been done by 

unanimous consent, but there’s been a 

lot of talk and a lot of publicity and a 

lot of arguments going back and forth 

about the bailout for the car companies; and it is, of course, very important. 

But in the scheme of things, you 

know, what’s $15 billion mean anymore, especially since it’s been authorized? 

The big thing is the big bailout, the 

$8 trillion, the unlimited amount the 

Federal Reserve has invested and what 

we’ve been doing for the past 6 months. 

We are on the road to nationalization. 

In many ways, we’re in the midst of nationalization without a whimper. 

b 1715 

There is no real talk about it. I 

mean, we’ve essentially nationalized 

the insurance companies, the mortgage 

companies, the banks, and medical 

care is moving in that direction, and 

now the car companies are going to be 

run by a car czar from this Congress. I 

mean, it is such an embarrassment. It 

is such an insult to us who believe in 

freedom, who believe in sound money 

and who believe in limited government. 

It is such an insult to the whole idea of 

what made America great, and this is 

what it has come to—bailout after bailout after bailout—and nobody even 

calls it what it really is. It is the nationalization of our industries. 

You know, in many ways, Harry Truman was a much more honest person. 

He said we should nationalize the steel 

industry, and he did. Fortunately, we 

still had a little bit of common sense in 

our courts, and they said ‘‘Hey, you’re 

going too far.’’ That’s what we’re doing 

here. We’re nationalizing. It happens 

always for good purposes, and we are 

always going to do good for this group, 

or that, but you never ask the question 

‘‘How much harm have you done to the 

other group?’’ and that’s what we 

ought to be talking about. We ought to 

really find out what this is costing. 

As much as I strongly believe in the 

free society—and I can defend it from 

the economic viewpoints—I also know 

where we are and where we ought to go. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10885 

Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds. 

Mr. PAUL. I do believe in the transition. That is, if we need a bailout for 

the car companies, even though I don’t 

like the idea, if you could pay for it, 

take it out of these hundreds of billions 

of dollars running the American empire 

around the world. Cut it; bring it home 

and spend it here, but running up of 

these deficits is going to do us in, and 

we are working on the collapse of the 

dollar. That is what you’d better pay 

attention to. So pay attention. This is 

a lot more important than this little 

$15 billion. To me, it has been a gross 

distraction of the great harm we’ve 

done in the past 6 months. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I 

continue to reserve the balance of my 

time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair will note that the gentleman 

from California has 6 minutes remaining and that the gentlewoman from 

New York has 51⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, 

I’m happy to yield 2 minutes to our 

hardworking colleague from 

Brooksville, Florida (Ms. BROWNWAITE). 

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying 

that the road to hell is paved with good 

intentions, and I think, today, we realize that the well-intentioned road may 

lead to bankruptcy, not just for the 

automakers but, perhaps, for the U.S. 

Treasury. 

Today, we have heard from wellmeaning Members of this House that, 

unless we send $15 billion to the Big 3, 

the American economy will fail. I don’t 

doubt their sincerity, but I do disagree 

with their conclusions. 

Some of my constituents support the 

bailout, but most of them don’t. As you 

can see from the picture next to me, 

the American citizens are hurting right 

now. The car in this picture is a Dodge 

Dynasty. By the way, this car has not 

been produced since 1993, so you can 

understand the angst of the car owner 

who realizes that his hard-earned tax 

dollars and those of his children and 

grandchildren are going for these bailouts. His message is very clear: Where 

is my bailout? 

The bill before us today does nothing 

to address the real pain being felt by 

American citizens. Nothing helps to 

lower health care costs or to protect 

the mortgages on their homes. 

I would also like to say that we had, 

again, a rush to judgment, a rush to 

bringing the bill to the floor, and we 

need to be concerned about that process. Please remember that Chrysler is a 

privately owned entity by a massive 

hedge fund firm in New York City. This 

hedge fund firm is not willing to invest 

one cent more in Chrysler, and yet we 

are asking our cash-strapped taxpayers 

back home to do it for them. 

Like we saw with the last bailout 

boondoggle, there are not enough safeguards here. We have to remember, too, 

that the loan and the conditions that 

are attached to it do not correct the 

structural weaknesses at these companies. They merely postpone the consequences for a short while. They will 

be back for more and more and more. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Mr. DREIER. I will yield my friend 

an additional 30 seconds. 

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. This loan policy also continues the 

tragically flawed policy of picking winners and losers in this economy. Who is 

to say that the Big 3 are more worthy 

of financial assistance than are the 

small businesses that, like the owner of 

this car, are struggling every single 

day to survive and to make their payroll. 

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that ‘‘the 

road to hell is paved with good intentions.’’ 

Today that well intentioned road leads to 

bankruptcy, not just for the automakers, but 

for the U.S. Treasury. 

Today we have heard from well meaning 

Members of this House that unless we send 

$15 billion to the Big Three, the American 

economy will fail. 

While I do not doubt their sincerity, I must 

disagree with their conclusions. 

Serving on the Financial Services Committee I have listened to hours of testimony 

from the automakers, their unions, and academic experts. 

More importantly though, over the past few 

weeks I have heard from hundreds of my constituents about how best to deal with the 

American automakers. 

While some of my constituents do support a 

bailout, the vast majority do not. 

As you can see from the picture next to me, 

the American citizens are hurting right now. 

The car in this photo is a Dodge Dynasty. It 

hasn’t been in production since 1993. 

But his message to Congress is pretty clear, 

‘‘where is my bailout?’’ 

the bill before us today does nothing to address the real pain being felt by American citizens. 

Nothing in this bill helps my constituents 

create jobs, lower health care costs or protect 

the mortgage on their home. In fact this bill 

takes their hard earned tax dollars to fund yet 

another bailout. 

I would also like to say that I resent the actions of the Democrat leadership and the 

White House for trying to ram this down our 

throats at the last minute before the holiday 

season, with the hope that the American people aren’t paying attention. 

Well, I have been paying attention, and here 

are some of my biggest concerns. 

(1) Chrysler is privately owned by a massive 

hedge fund in New York City named Cerberus. If this hedge fund is not willing to invest 

in Chrysler, why should cash-strapped taxpayers do it for them? 

(2) Like we saw with the last bailout boondoggle, this $15 billion today is likely only a 

down payment. If Congress is honest with the 

American people they will tell us that a vote 

for the bailout today is a vote for much, much 

more in the future. 

(3) This loan, and the conditions that are attached to it, do not correct the structural weaknesses at these companies, it merely 

postpones the consequences for a short while. 

(4) This loan continues the tragically flawed 

policy of picking winners and losers in the 

economy. Who is to say that saving the Big 3 

is more important than propping up the 

160,000 small businesses in towns like 

Clermont or Brooksville that could go under 

during this recession? 

(5) The automakers lose money even when 

the economy is doing well and creating jobs. 

GM alone lost $39 billion in 2007. That followed a $10.6 billion loss in 2005 and ‘‘only’’ 

$2 billion in 2006. 

(6) This is the best possible time to file for 

Chapter 11. Sales are at their lowest levels in 

decades, shareholder equity is already wiped 

out, and consumer confidence in the Big 

Three is already shaken. If bankruptcy means 

that consumers stop buying your brand, why 

not go through this now while sales are historically low and the explicit backing of the government is on the table? 

Put simply, the American taxpayers were 

sold a bill of goods in the financial sector bailout, and have learned that we cannot trust the 

current leadership in Congress and the White 

House to do what is in their best financial interests in the future. 

I ask that Members heed the wishes of their 

constituents and vote down the bill. Let’s continue work through December and in the next 

Congress to put together a bill that protects 

taxpayers and provides stability in the American automobile markets. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the rule 

and the bill. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I 

continue to reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, am I correct to infer that my colleague is the 

last speaker on her side? 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Like you, Mr. 

DREIER, I don’t know. People come and 

go. 

Mr. DREIER. Okay. Then I’ll reserve 

the balance of my time. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. One moment, 

please, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am 

happy to proceed. I just wanted to 

know if the gentlewoman was the closing speaker. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes, I am. I will 

close, but not yet. 

Mr. DREIER. Oh, I think you’ll have 

the right to close under the rule. There 

is no doubt about that. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes. 

Mr. DREIER. At this point, I am very 

happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend 

from St. Joseph, Michigan, a hardworking member from the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, Mr. UPTON. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, 4 months 

ago, this Nation was not talking about 

a bailout. They weren’t talking, say, 

about a bad economy, although it was 

certainly weak in Michigan, to say the 

least. We weren’t talking about the 

loss of 525,000 jobs the month before. 

No, we were talking about energy and 

the need for an all-American energy 

plan. Part of that debate was to wean 

us off foreign oil and to develop the 

cars that, in fact, will do just that. 

As I sat down with Ford and with 

Chrysler and with GM and saw their 

Volt and the other vehicles, we were 

excited. We were going to make a lot of 

progress to wean us off foreign energy, 

H10886 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

but we could only do it if we got the 

money to retool. 

Four months ago, in August, we, in 

fact, got the tip that the lenders 

weren’t lending. No. They were coming 

in at 20 percent interest rates. That’s 

what they were going to charge. We 

went to the administration. We went to 

the leadership on both sides of this 

Congress, and we said, if that happens, 

they’ll never get the money; we’ll 

never build these cars, and these companies will go bankrupt before the end 

of the year. 

Sadly, we are here today on December 10, and that may exactly happen if 

we do not get a bill to the President’s 

desk. It looks like our prediction from 

last August may be right on track, but 

if you thought 525,000 jobs lost last 

month was a problem, you wait until 

we get to 2 million to 3 million jobs 

when we lose those in a month or two 

if we don’t get this bill done. 

This isn’t new money that we’re asking for. It has already been directed. It 

has already been appropriated. What 

we ask is just redirection to help a domestic industry so that we can make 

these vehicles in America—that’s 

right—made in America, not someplace 

else. 

China, as my colleague SANDY LEVIN

has indicated, has already approved $55 

billion for the domestic auto manufacturing in China. Europe is doing the 

same thing. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to 

my friend an additional 15 seconds. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we are in a 

recession now. We’ve been in one in 

Michigan for a long time. You can only 

imagine where we’re going to go—into 

a deep recession for who knows how 

long if we don’t get this money approved for the Big 3 so that we can 

build the cars that consumers want 

that will wean us off foreign oil. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to 

our hardworking colleague from Tyler, 

Texas, JUDGE GOHMERT. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this reminds me that this begging for money 

for a bailout is a fix. I saw it a lot in 

drug dealers and in drug addicts who 

would come before my court for sentencing. It was the same story. They 

would come in. They would have that 

first little rush from that first fix, and 

then they would have to have more and 

more and more. If you really love them 

and you care about them deeply and 

want them to reach their God-given potential, you cut them off and say, ‘‘I 

love you too much to start you down 

this road.’’ 

In this case, bankruptcy is the place 

to go. That’s why it’s designed by Congress. Let’s get this fixed so that it will 

be good for all Americans. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds 

remaining. The gentlewoman from New 

York has 31⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I had a 

very thoughtful, eloquent, lengthy 

closing statement, and I now have 30 

seconds. Okay. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. DREIER, I do 

have one more speaker. I don’t know if 

you want to take the closing back. 

Mr. DREIER. Oh, then I will reserve 

the balance of my time. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. JACKSONLEE). 

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked 

and was given permission to revise and 

extend her remarks.) 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. 

Speaker, I see no drug addicts in here. 

I only see hardworking Americans— 

people who make things with their 

hands and who support their families 

and who make cars that have been 

noted as outstanding cars, not only in 

America but also around the world. So 

I support the bail in of all of these taxpayers, and I am gratified that this 

particular legislation does answer the 

question. 

I would like to yield to the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, to ask him about this auto czar 

and whether or not they have the authority to prevent the relocation of 

these plants overseas to take jobs away 

from Americans. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The 

provision of the bill that gives the authority or the ability to veto any $100 

million grade of investment or any $100 

million impact decision includes the 

right to say ‘‘no’’ to a closure or to 

move the plant somewhere else, and it 

is primarily designed by us to ensure 

against the possibility that the taxpayer dollars being lent to them would 

be used to facilitate movement to 

other parts of the world where even the 

gentleman from California would agree 

that they would not be American. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Well, 

let me just say that this bill focuses on 

restoring the ability of Americans to 

make things. It protects the taxpayers 

with the ‘‘car czar.’’ It protects retirees. It protects the pensioners. It protects the families. It stops, if you will, 

this massive bonus program. It’s interesting that my friends now say do the 

bankruptcy process, but when the poor 

mortgage holder was asking for a bankruptcy, the process of my friends on 

the other side of the aisle would not 

allow them to do so. 

Bankrupt companies selling cars do 

not work. Let us stand for the hardworking Americans who make things 

with their hands, who design things 

with their intuitiveness and who bring 

to America the pride that built the 

middle class. 

I am proud of this bill, and I believe 

we should stand strong to support 

them. It is good to give tools to the 

next administration who can make this 

right. For my friends who want to help 

the small businesses, join me in supporting the economic stimulus package 

for which we’re going to vote to help 

Americans to restore their lives. 

Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of H.R. 

7297. I would like to thank the Chairman of Financial Service BARNEY FRANK for bringing 

this important piece of legislation to the floor. 

I rise today with the confidence that our system of government is strong and the constitutional protections of our government will protect America while we reform America’s automobile industry. 

Leadership has worked without tiring to ensure that this bill contains language that will 

ensure the betterment of the American people. 

Our leadership should be thanked for working 

on this bill during long hours into the night, 

weekends, and busy days. We toiled long into 

the night to incorporate Democratic principles 

in this bill. 

I have worked with leadership to offer language from the bill that I introduced on November 20, 2008. The bill is H.R. 7297, 

‘‘Emergency Automobile Industry American 

Jobs Protection Act of 2008.’’ 

The ideas included in H.R. 7297 are important because they will continue to keep America’s economy strong, ensure that jobs remain 

in America and that the automobile companies 

develop a definite plan for growth. My legislation is aimed at stabilizing the American automobile industry through jobs, dealerships, including women and minority-owned dealerships, and American automobile industry suppliers. H.R. 7297 requires that any loan funds 

distributed to the ‘‘Big Three’’ automobile companies should be conditioned upon these companies filing a certification with the Congress. 

The bill provides that before receiving loan 

funds, the ‘‘Big Three’’ must certify the following: 

(1) United States automobile jobs will not be 

decreased by relocation to foreign companies; 

(2) automobile dealerships will benefit from 

the receipt of these loan funds, and that the 

‘‘Big Three’’ shall further provide for the stability of such dealerships, including women 

and minority-owned dealerships; and 

(3) United States automobile suppliers will 

also be supported by and stabilized by such 

loan funding. 

The bill also provides that no loan funds 

should be used by the ‘‘Big Three’’ to allow 

them to relocate overseas if it will result in the 

loss of United States automobile industry jobs, 

dealerships, or suppliers. Lastly, the bill provides that the loan funds should be distributed 

to the ‘‘Big Three’’ to ensure their stability and 

to establish a long-term plan of growth for 

United States automobile dealerships, including women and minority-owned dealerships, 

and United States automotive industry suppliers. 

In fact, it is because I am concerned and 

desire that the maximum number of Americans get relief from this bill, that I offered 

amendments yesterday. To ensure that this 

bill provides relief for Americans, I offered the 

following amendments: 

(1) Set aside $125 million (in fact the 

amount could been more) as a firm allotment 

to address the question of individual American 

homeowners facing foreclosure in light of the 

absence of a bankruptcy provision; 

(2) Add Sense of the Congress language 

that the Bankruptcy Code should be reviewed 

and amended in the future to permit bankruptcy judges to address the question of individual home mortgage restructuring; 

(3) Allow the courts to exercise rigorous judicial review and provide those courts with the 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10887 

discretion to grant injunctive and/or equitable 

relief if the courts determine that such relief 

would not destabilize financial markets; 

(4) Create a new independent commission 

to exercise oversight over the current financial 

situation with enforcement powers; 

(5) Allow criminal liability for persons or corporate entities that have engaged in criminal 

malfeasance; 

(6) Bar persons/corporate entities found to 

have engaged in criminal malfeasance with 

malicious intent in financial markets from 

doing business with the federal government in 

the future. 

THE BILL IN CONTEXT

Segments of the economy have the ability 

to be strong. America needs to employ its full, 

faith, and credit to back its commitments. I feel 

strongly that this bill should have set aside 

$125 million to help homeowners who are facing mortgage foreclosure. This is important because it is money that would have been used 

to help the aggrieved: Main Street. 

It is important to note that all five big investments—Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman 

Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have altogether disappeared or morphed 

into regular banks. Given this phenomenon, 

the question arises and no one has or can 

seem to explain: Is this bailout still necessary? 

Dr. James K. Gailbraith, of the University of 

Texas, wrote in the Washington Post, on September 25, 2008, that the bailout is not necessary because the point of the bailout has 

been articulated as buying assets that are illiquid ‘‘but not worthless. But regular banks 

hold assets like that all the time. They are 

called ‘loans.’ 

With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear the loan book is 

bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that.’’ 

Deposit insurance presently is capped at 

$100,000. We should have considered raising 

the FDIC insurance cap, increased the amount 

of capitalization in the FDIC corporation, increased the amount of reserves in the Treasury Department. 

Dr. Galbraith wrote, ‘‘In Texas, recovery 

from the 1980s oil bust took seven years and 

the pull of strong national economic growth. 

The present slump is national, and it can’t be 

cured by legislation alone. But it could be resolved in three years, by a new Home Owners 

Loan Corp., which would rewrite mortgages, 

manage rental conversions, and decide when 

vacant, degraded properties should be demolished.’’ 

As I consider this piece of legislation, three 

of the themes that are consistent throughout it 

are (1) where is the enforcement; (2) who receives the first dollar; and (3) what is the disastrous and catastrophic event that will occur 

if this bill is not passed today? Because of the 

complexity of the nature and extent of the 

problems within the financial markets, I would 

rather that Congress carefully review and consider the right solution. 

Congress should order the SEC, FDIC, the 

Federal Revenue Service to use their current 

powers and prevent the consequences with 

some extraordinary powers such as cited 

above regulating lifting the caps at the FDIC 

and allowing the SEC to suspend certain accounting practices, all this can be done without the massive bailout all at once. 

This legislation was considered at 10:00 

p.m. in a closed rule last night; debate on the 

rule immediately transpired with less than 10 

members participating at approximately midnight. In less than ten hours, members are expected to have read, understand, and speak 

intelligently upon this complex piece of legislation. 

When we consider the magnitude and extent of the financial problem, we must consider 

how America has gotten here in the first place. 

During the past Administration, America underwent a housing boom. Depressed housing 

markets around the country experienced unparalleled increases in price. Middle-class, 

working Americans sought to achieve the 

American dream by purchasing a home. 

At the same time, banks and financial institutions were selling unsophisticated consumers unconventional and creative mortgage 

financing alternatives. Financial institutions 

were apt to qualify borrowers for more house 

than they could afford. Financial institutions 

were lending subprime mortgages and engaged in predatory lending. Adjustable rate 

mortgages, which had an interest rate that 

would adjust within 1, 3, or more years, became more common within the last 7 years. 

Interest-only names became common names 

within the first home purchaser’s market. Borrowers who were considered a credit risk were 

allowed to purchase homes. The banks and financial institutions were not paying attention 

to a borrower’s credit rating, their ability to 

pay, or a borrower’s potential to default. 

PRESENT FINANCIAL SITUATION

According to Bloomberg, this morning 

stocks around the world tumbled, the euro and 

the pound plunged and bonds rose as governments raced to prop up banks. Hong Kong’s 

Hang Seng Index plunged 4.31 percent to 

17,876.41, and Tokyo’s benchmark Nikkei lost 

1.3 percent to close at 11,743.61. 

Europe’s Dow Jones Stoxx 100 Index declined 3.2 percent. MSCI Asia Pacific Index 

lost 2.7 percent after Dexia SA sank the most 

since it began trading 12 years ago and ICICI 

Bank Ltd. retreated to a two-year low. Futures 

on the S&P’s 500 Index fell 1.7 percent as 

Wachovia Corp. tumbled 91 percent. Citigroup 

Inc. agreed to buy the company’s banking operations in a transaction the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corp. helped arrange. 

The British pound dropped the most against 

the dollar in 15 years and the euro weakened 

after European governments stepped in to rescue Bradford & Bingley Plc, Fortis, and Hypo 

Real Estate Holding AG. 

So far, the $700 billion package to shore up 

banks hammered out by Treasury Secretary 

Henry Paulson and congressional leaders over 

the weekend failed to convince investors it will 

shore up banks saddled with growing mortgages losses. The crisis that began with bad 

home loans to subprime borrowers in the U.S. 

is threatening to push the global economy into 

a recession as consumers lose confidence as 

banks cut back on lending. 

It is difficult to have a $700 billion rescue bill 

when the President failed to sign $60 billion to 

provide economic stimulus to working-class 

Americans. 

In September, Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac, Lehman Brothers all filed for bankruptcy. 

Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of 

America, AIG was taken over by the Treasury, 

and Washington Mutual was seized by regulators in the biggest U.S. bank failure in history. Financial institutions worldwide have reported more than $550 billion of credit losses 

and asset writedowns since the beginning of 

2007, according to data compiled by 

Bloomberg. 

Even after the announcement of the rescue 

package, the worldwide markets are still declining. I fail to see the specific catastrophic 

events/consequences that the U.S. public will 

experience if this bailout does not occur. 

I am cautious because I believe that we as 

members of Congress need to take the time to 

craft a real recovery plan for our economy, a 

plan that puts people first and addresses our 

multiple economic crises, including good jobs, 

affordable housing, health care, retirement security, infrastructure, and disaster relief 

(Katrina, Ike, etc.). 

Last week, New York Mayor Michael 

Bloomberg announced $1.5 billion in public 

spending cuts. I do not believe that this was 

prudent. Schools, fire departments, police stations, parks, libraries, and water projects are 

getting cut. The persons who are feeling the 

effects of this economic decision are the more 

vulnerable populations, the elderly, the children, and the working-class. Mayor 

Bloomberg’s reaction is not the solution either. 

It is clear that something must be done, but 

this bill does not provide the answer that 

America seeks. 

Recently, Congress sent an economic stimulus package to the President that would have 

provided $60 billion in relief to middle-class 

working Americans. The President vetoed this 

bill. However, the Administration sends to us 

today this bill requesting $700 billion to bail 

out Wall Street. 

I would offer that we need to restructure our 

present financial system. However, the kinds 

of reform that I believe are necessary are not 

included in this bill. For example, the Federal 

Reserve itself needs to be reformed. As members of Congress we should be looking at establishing greater oversight, preventing predatory practices and establishing public alternatives to the reckless privatized system that 

brought us the crisis in the first place. We 

need to prevent the victims of predatory lending from losing their homes and restrict lobbying by the financial sector. 

I have heard from my constituents that they 

are not supportive of this bill. Many themselves were community bankers. One community banker, for example, wrote: 

‘‘I am a community banker who is deeply 

concerned about the recent developments on 

Wall Street and the bailouts that our government has undertaken. The great, great majority of banks in this country never made one 

subprime loan, and ninety-eight percent are 

well-captialized . . . we don’t ask for or need 

a bailout.’’ 

LITTLE RELIEF FOR THE NATION’S HOMEOWNERS

Because of the way that the bill is written, 

few if any homeowners will get mortgage relief, which is why I offered an amendment that 

would give $125 million directly to the homeowners facing mortgage foreclosure. The bill 

does not contain any provision allowing the 

terms of a mortgage to be changed without 

the consent of all the investors who own the 

mortgage. Few homeowners will benefit. For 

example, the bill would not provide relief to the 

majority of homeowners. The bill does not 

contain any provision allowing the terms of a 

mortgage to be changed without the consent 

of all the investors who own the mortgage. 

The bill is little more than a Wall Street earmark and is not really a bill for homeowners. 

H10888 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

Although the bill does not provide for parachutes for executives, the executives’ compensation remains the same. 

This is because the Treasury will chiefly 

purchase mortgage-backed securities which 

will make the federal government one of several co-owners of millions of mortgages. 

Whether or not any mortgages are modified 

will be determined by the loan servicer acting 

on behalf of all the various investors who own 

a piece of the mortgage. That is why Section 

108(d) states in part, ‘‘The Secretary shall request loan services servicing the mortgage 

loans to avoid preventable foreclosures.’’ Congress has already requested all loan servicers 

nationwide to avoid preventable foreclosures, 

so an additional request from the Treasury is 

unlikely to change current behavior. 

REPUBLICAN COMMENTARY

Republican critics of the bill argue that the 

bill rescues persons that lack financial responsibility because they were living beyond their 

means or that the bill helps minorities who did 

not exercise fiscal responsibility. There is simply no credibility to these arguments. As I 

have attempted to stress today, the mortgage 

foreclosure crisis affects all Americans. Financial institutions engaged in speculation on Wall 

Street that we now see has had a deleterious 

effect on Main Street. 

Speculation, in a financial context, is the assumption of the risk of loss, in return for the 

uncertain possibility of a reward. Speculation 

is one of the main causes of various economic 

crises around the world. In fact, speculators 

have played a major role in the present crisis. 

The speculators were greedy. 

Nonprofits such as ACORN, NACA, and 

Homefree USA, among many others, have 

long been waging consumer campaigns to 

educate borrowers about the various financial 

instruments. And, I am resoundingly grateful to 

them for their hard work. We cannot make 

them the scapegoats. These organizations 

have allowed persons who might not otherwise have the knowledge or the opportunity to 

purchase a home, the opportunity to do so in 

the right way. These nonprofits should be applauded. 

Everyone deserves the economic dream of 

owning their own home. But the financial institutions were dilatory in their responsibility to 

assess the borrower’s ability to pay for loans 

and purchase a home. It was the squandering 

of this responsibility and preoccupation with 

greed and avarice that has led us to where we 

are today. 

There are substantial improvements in the 

present version of the bill compared to the 

Bush administration proposal. However, the 

bill as it is presently written does not provide 

the necessary relief to middle-class America. 

Frankly, the bill provides no panacea to our 

present economic woes. Our markets will have 

the full faith and credit of the United States. 

This bill has not sent a sufficiently clear message because it lacks enforcement. 

There are provisions now that address accountability measures by requiring a plan to 

ensure the taxpayer is repaid in full, and requiring Congressional review after the first 

$350 billion for future payments. 

Principally, there are three phases of a financial rescue with strong taxpayer protections: reinvest, reimburse, and reform. One of 

the phases is to re-invest in the troubled financial markets to stabilize the markets. Another, 

reimburses the taxpayer and requires a plan 

to guarantee that they will be repaid in full. 

The last is to reform how business is done on 

Wall Street. The current legislation provides 

for fewer golden parachutes and, to its credit, 

provides sweeping Congressional oversight. 

There are critical improvements to the rescue plan that yield greater protection to the 

American taxpayers and even to Main Street. 

The protection for taxpayers include the following: 

(1) gives taxpayers a share of the profits of 

participating companies, or puts taxpayers first 

in line to recover assets if a company fails; 

and 

(2) allows the government to also purchase 

troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve lowand middle-income families. 

For companies publicly auctioning over 

$300 million: 

(1) there will be no multi-million dollar golden parachutes for top five executives after 

auction, although nothing prevents these executives from still reaping enormous salaries. 

(2) there will be no tax deduction for executive compensation over $500,000. 

However, with a ‘‘pause’’ we can help the financial markets and make America secured. 

MY AMENDMENT LANGUAGE

While the bill has some improvements, what 

is missing from the bill are serious enforcement mechanisms. The language of the bill 

was good and was marked improvement over 

what the Administration has sent to us last 

week, but more work needs to be done on the 

bill. There are still elements that added to the 

bill. 

The bill provides for the creation of a Financial Stability Oversight Board in Section 104. 

The bill also establishes a special inspector 

general for the troubled asset relief program in 

Section 121. Lastly, section 125 establishes 

the Congressional Oversight Panel. Importantly, these sections lack any real enforcement. These sections require reports and investigation; however, there is no criminal 

sanction for any malfeasance perpetrated by 

employers. 

One of my amendments would have established an Oversight Board that would have 

had the authority to issue criminal penalties 

and civil sanctions. My amendment would 

have provided a strong enforcement mechanism and would have been effective in ensuring that this crisis does not occur again. It 

would send a clear message to Wall Street. 

Another one of my amendments would have 

added serious judicial review to section 119. 

Section 119 presently provides that no injunction or other form of equitable relief shall be 

issued against the Secretary other than to 

remedy a violation of the Constitution. My 

amendment would have allowed meaningful 

judicial review because it would have allowed 

injunctive and other forms of equitable relief 

insofar as the grant of such relief did not disrupt financial markets. These are remedies 

available at law and in equity. I see no compelling reason why such relief should not be 

granted in the financial context. 

The bill has no bankruptcy provisions. The 

bill does not permit homeowners who are 

presently in mortgage foreclosure from declaring Chapter 11 and 13 bankruptcy. Importantly, my amendment would allow homeowners in default of their mortgages to restructure their loan, thus providing immediate 

relief to the homeowner. 

Because the bill is devoid bankruptcy relief, 

I offered another amendment to set aside 

$125 million as a firm allotment to address the 

question of individual American homeowners 

facing foreclosure. I believe that this would 

have provided relief in the absence of any extension of the bankruptcy code to address current homeowners in mortgage foreclosure. 

I believe that Wall Street is an important 

and vital part of the nation’s economy. I believe that the people who work there are good. 

It is a well known fact that financial markets 

do not always serve small businesses and minorities. I have personally had experiences 

where good hardworking people and small 

business owners were denied access to financial markets. 

I believe in America and I believe in its Constitution. I believe that we can create a bill that 

would allow constant monitoring and vigilance 

and would help the American people. 

I am reminded of the Preamble to our Constitution, which reads: 

‘‘We the People of the United States, in 

Order to form a more perfect Union, establish 

Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide 

for the common defence, promote the general 

Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty 

to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and 

establish this Constitution for the United 

States of America.’’ 

I would like to end with a quote from Alexander Hamilton: ‘‘the sacred rights of mankind 

are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as 

with a sun beam in the whole volume of 

human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself 

and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.’’ 

Let us work to provide the American people 

with the sun beam. Let us work to provide legislation that works and that serves the American people. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 

for 30 seconds. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a 

‘‘no’’ vote on the rule, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I 

want to urge everybody to vote ‘‘yes.’’ 

I yield back the balance of my time, 

and I move the previous question on 

the resolution. 

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. Mr. 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 

WILLIAM WILBERFORCE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Energy and 

Commerce and the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 7311) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through