H10908 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

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 

Cannon 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carney 

Carter 

Castle 

Chabot 

Coble 

Cole (OK) 

Conaway 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Davis (KY) 

Davis, David 

Deal (GA) 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Drake 

Dreier 

Duncan 

Emerson 

English (PA) 

Fallin 

Feeney 

Ferguson 

Flake 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Fossella 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Giffords 

Gingrey 

Gohmert 

Goode 

Goodlatte 

Granger 

Graves 

Hall (TX) 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayes 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herseth Sandlin 

Hill 

Hobson 

Hoekstra 

Hulshof 

Hunter 

Inglis (SC) 

Issa 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones (NC) 

Jordan 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kline (MN) 

Lamborn 

Latham 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

Lewis (KY) 

Linder 

LoBiondo 

Lucas 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul (TX) 

McCrery 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Mica 

Michaud 

Miller (FL) 

Mitchell 

Moran (KS) 

Murphy, Tim 

Musgrave 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Paul 

Pearce 

Pence 

Petri 

Pickering 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe 

Porter 

Price (GA) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Regula 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Reynolds 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Royce 

Ryan (WI) 

Sali 

Scalise 

Schmidt 

Sessions 

Shadegg 

Shays 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Stearns 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thornberry 

Tiahrt 

Tiberi 

Turner 

Walden (OR) 

Walsh (NY) 

Wamp 

Weller 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield (KY) 

Wilson (NM) 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman (VA) 

Wolf 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1 

Campbell (CA) 

NOT VOTING—28 

Costa 

Cubin 

Delahunt 

Doolittle 

Ellison 

Emanuel 

Everett 

Gilchrest 

Gutierrez 

Hastings (FL) 

Hooley 

Jefferson 

Johnson, E. B. 

Keller 

Kirk 

Kuhl (NY) 

Miller, Gary 

Peterson (PA) 

Pryce (OH) 

Renzi 

Rohrabacher 

Saxton 

Sensenbrenner 

Snyder 

Tancredo 

Walberg 

Watson 

Weldon (FL) 

b 1812 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

AUTO INDUSTRY FINANCING AND 

RESTRUCTURING ACT 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 

1534, I call up the bill (H.R. 7321) to authorize financial assistance to eligible 

automobile manufacturers, and for 

other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 7321 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as 

the ‘‘Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Findings and purposes. 

Sec. 3. Presidential designation. 

Sec. 4. Bridge financing. 

Sec. 5. Restructuring progress assessment. 

Sec. 6. Submission of plans. 

Sec. 7. Financing for restructuring. 

Sec. 8. Disapproval and call of loan. 

Sec. 9. Allocation. 

Sec. 10. Funding. 

Sec. 11. Terms and conditions. 

Sec. 12. Taxpayer protection. 

Sec. 13. Oversight and audits. 

Sec. 14. Automobile manufacturers’ study 

on potential manufacturing of 

transit vehicles. 

Sec. 15. Reporting and monitoring. 

Sec. 16. Report to Congress on lack of 

progress toward achieving an 

acceptable negotiated plan. 

Sec. 17. Submission of plan to Congress by 

the President’s designee. 

Sec. 18. Guarantee of leases of qualified 

transportation property. 

Sec. 19. Coordination with other laws. 

Sec. 20. Treatment of restructuring for purposes of applying limitations on 

net operating loss 

carryforwards and certain 

built-in losses. 

Sec. 21. Emergency designation. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following: 

(1) A combination of factors, including errors in the business model of domestic automobile manufacturers, and emergency economic circumstances, has prevented the domestic automobile industry from securing 

credit from other sources, and has led to the 

possibility of the failure of the domestic 

automobile industry, which failure would 

have a systemic adverse effect on the economy. 

(2) Therefore, action in the form of financial aid to the domestic automobile industry 

is necessary to stabilize the economy. 

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act 

are— 

(1) to immediately provide authority and 

facilities to restore liquidity and stability to 

the domestic automobile industry in the 

United States; and 

(2) to ensure that such authority and such 

facilities are used in a manner that— 

(A) results in a viable and competitive domestic automobile industry that minimizes 

adverse effects on the environment; 

(B) enhances the ability and the capacity 

of the domestic automobile industry to pursue the timely and aggressive production of 

energy-efficient advanced technology vehicles; 

(C) preserves and promotes the jobs of 

American workers employed directly by the 

domestic automobile industry and in related 

industries; 

(D) safeguards the ability of the domestic 

automobile industry to provide retirement 

and health care benefits for the industry’s 

retirees and their dependents; and 

(E) stimulates manufacturing and sales of 

automobiles produced by automobile manufacturers in the United States. 

SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The President shall designate 1 or more officers from the Executive 

Branch having appropriate expertise in such 

areas as economic stabilization, financial aid 

to commerce and industry, financial restructuring, energy efficiency, and environmental 

protection (who shall hereinafter in this Act 

be collectively referred to as the ‘‘President’s designee’’) to carry out the purposes 

of this Act, including the facilitation of restructuring necessary to achieve the longterm financial viability of domestic automobile manufacturers, who shall serve at the 

pleasure of the President. 

(b) ADDITIONAL PERSONS.—The President or 

the President’s designee may also employ, 

appoint, or contract with additional persons 

having such expertise as the President or the 

President’s designee believes will assist the 

Government in carrying out the purposes of 

this Act. 

(c) PARTICIPATION BY OTHER AGENCY PERSONNEL.—Other Federal agencies may provide, at the request of the President’s designee, staff on detail from such agencies for 

purposes of carrying out this Act. 

SEC. 4. BRIDGE FINANCING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President’s designee 

shall authorize and direct the disbursement 

of bridge loans or enter into commitments 

for lines of credit to each automobile manufacturer that submitted a plan to the Congress on December 2, 2008 (hereafter in this 

Act referred to as an ‘‘eligible automobile 

manufacturer’’), and has submitted a request 

for such loan or commitment. 

(b) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—All funds that 

are available pursuant to section 10 to provide bridge financing or commitments for 

lines of credit to eligible automobile manufacturers, after taking into account the reservation of funds under section 10(a)(2), shall 

be used for the purposes described in section 

10(a). No new funds shall be available to any 

eligible automobile manufacturer for the 

purposes of this section after the date on 

which the President’s designee has approved 

restructuring plan under section 6 for such 

eligible automobile manufacturer. 

(c) AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.—The President’s designee shall authorize bridge loans 

or commitments for lines of credit to each 

eligible automobile manufacturer in an 

amount that is intended to facilitate the 

continued operations of the eligible automobile manufacturer and to prevent the failure of the eligible automobile manufacturer, 

consistent with the plan submitted on December 2, 2008, and subject to available 

funds. 

(d) ALLOCATION.—The President’s designee 

shall authorize the disbursements or commitments under this section in accordance 

with the allocation priorities set forth in 

subsections (a) and (b) of section 9. 

SEC. 5. RESTRUCTURING PROGRESS ASSESSMENT. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF MEASURES FOR ASSESSING PROGRESS.—Not later than January 

1, 2009, the President’s designee shall determine appropriate measures for assessing the 

progress of each eligible automobile manufacturer toward transforming the plan submitted by such manufacturer to the Congress on December 2, 2008, into the restructuring plan to be submitted under section 

6(b). 

(b) EVALUATION OF PROGRESS ON BASIS OF

RESTRUCTURING PROGRESS ASSESSMENT

MEASURES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The President’s designee 

shall evaluate the progress of each eligible 

automobile manufacturer toward the development of a restructuring plan, on the basis 

of the restructuring progress assessment 

measures established under this section for 

such manufacturer. 

(2) TIMING.—Each evaluation required 

under paragraph (1) for any eligible automobile manufacturer shall be conducted at 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10909 

the end of the 45-day period beginning on the 

date on which the restructuring progress assessment measures were established by the 

President’s designee for such eligible automobile manufacturer. 

SEC. 6. SUBMISSION OF PLANS. 

(a) NEGOTIATED PLANS.— 

(1) FACILITATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date of 

the enactment of this Act, the President’s 

designee shall seek to facilitate agreement 

on any restructuring plan to achieve and 

sustain the long-term viability, international competitiveness, and energy efficiency of an eligible automobile manufacturer, negotiated and agreed to by representatives of interested parties (in this Act referred to as a ‘‘negotiated plan’’) with respect to any eligible automobile manufacturer. 

(B) INTERESTED PARTIES.—For purposes of 

this section, the term ‘‘interested party’’ 

shall be construed broadly so as to include 

all persons who have a direct financial interest in a particular automobile manufacturer, 

including— 

(i) employees and retirees of the eligible 

automobile manufacturer; 

(ii) trade unions; 

(iii) creditors; 

(iv) suppliers; 

(v) automobile dealers; and 

(vi) shareholders. 

(2) ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT’S DESIGNEE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of 

achieving a negotiated plan, the President’s 

designee may convene, chair, and conduct 

formal and informal meetings, discussions, 

and consultations, as appropriate, with interested parties of an eligible automobile 

manufacturer. 

(B) CLARIFICATION.—The Federal Advisory 

Committee Act shall not apply with respect 

to any of the activities conducted or taken 

by the President’s designee pursuant to this 

Act. 

(b) RESTRUCTURING PLAN.—Not later than 

March 31, 2009, each eligible automobile 

manufacturer shall submit to the President’s 

designee a restructuring plan to achieve and 

sustain the long-term viability, international competitiveness, and energy efficiency of the eligible automobile manufacturer (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘restructuring plan’’) in accordance with this section. The President’s designee shall approve 

the restructuring plan if the President’s designee determines that the plan will result 

in— 

(1) the repayment of all Government-provided financing, consistent with the terms 

specified in section 11, or otherwise agreed 

to; 

(2) the ability— 

(A) to comply with applicable fuel efficiency and emissions requirements; 

(B) to commence domestic manufacturing 

of advanced technology vehicles, as described in section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public 

Law 110–140; 42 U.S.C. 17013); and 

(C) to produce new and existing products 

and capacity, as described in section 14; 

(3) the achievement of a positive net 

present value, using reasonable assumptions 

and taking into account all existing and projected future costs, including repayment of 

any financial assistance provided pursuant 

to this Act; 

(4) efforts to rationalize costs, capitalization, and capacity with respect to the manufacturing workforce, suppliers, and dealerships of the eligible automobile manufacturer; 

(5) proposals to restructure existing debt, 

including, where appropriate, the conversion 

of debt to equity, to improve the ability of 

the eligible automobile manufacturer to 

raise private capital; and 

(6) a product mix and cost structure that is 

competitive in the United States marketplace. 

(c) EXTENSION OF NEGOTIATIONS AND PLAN

DEADLINE.—Notwithstanding the time limitations in subsection (b), the President’s designee, upon making a determination that the 

interested parties are negotiating in good 

faith, are making significant progress, and 

that an additional period of time would likely facilitate agreement on a negotiated plan, 

and upon notification of the Congress, may 

extend for not longer than 30 additional days 

the negotiation period under subsection (b). 

SEC. 7. FINANCING FOR RESTRUCTURING. 

Upon approval by the President’s designee 

of a restructuring plan, the President’s designee may provide financial assistance to an 

eligible automobile manufacturer to implement the restructuring plan. 

SEC. 8. DISAPPROVAL AND CALL OF LOAN. 

If the President’s designee has not approved the restructuring plan at the expiration of the period provided in section 6 for 

submission and approval of the restructuring 

plan, the President’s designee shall call the 

loan or cancel the commitment within 30 

days, unless a restructuring plan is approved 

within that period. 

SEC. 9. ALLOCATION. 

(a) PRIORITIZING ALLOCATION.—The President’s designee shall prioritize allocation of 

the provision of financial assistance under 

this Act to any eligible automobile manufacturer, based on— 

(1) the necessity of the financial assistance 

for the continued operation of the eligible 

automobile manufacturer; 

(2) the potential impact of the failure of 

the eligible automobile manufacturer on the 

United States economy; and 

(3) the ability to utilize the financial assistance optimally to satisfy the operational 

and long-term restructuring requirements of 

the eligible automobile manufacturer. 

(b) ORDER OF PRIORITY; SECTION 4.—For 

purposes of allocating bridge loans or commitments pursuant to section 4, the President’s designee shall prioritize the considerations set forth in subsection (a) in the following order: paragraph (1), paragraph (2), 

and paragraph (3). 

(c) ORDER OF PRIORITY; SECTION 7.—For 

purposes of allocating financial assistance 

for restructuring pursuant to section 7, the 

President’s designee shall prioritize the considerations set forth in subsection (a) in the 

following order: paragraph (3), paragraph (2), 

and paragraph (1). 

SEC. 10. FUNDING. 

(a) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Such sums are appropriated as are necessary for the purpose of 

providing funds to support up to 

$14,000,000,000 in loans under this Act. The 

Secretary of Energy shall make available to 

the President’s designee $7,010,000,000 of 

funds made available under section 129 of division A of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, relating to funding for the 

manufacture of advanced technology vehicles, which shall reduce the appropriation 

under this paragraph. 

(2) RESERVATION FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.— 

The Secretary of Energy shall reserve 

$500,000,000 of the amounts made available 

under paragraph (1) for purposes of section 

136 of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 

17013). 

(3) CONTINUING APPLICATION PROCESS.—No 

provision of this section shall be construed 

as prohibiting or limiting the Secretary of 

Energy from processing applications for 

loans under section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy, sums as may be necessary for the purpose of replenishing the funds made available to the President’s designee under subsection (a)(1). 

SEC. 11. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

(a) DURATION.—The duration of any loan 

made under this Act shall be 7 years, or such 

longer period as the President’s designee 

may determine with respect to such loan. 

(b) RATE OF INTEREST; TIMING OF PAYMENTS.— 

(1) RATE OF INTEREST.—The annual rate of 

interest for a loan under this Act shall be— 

(A) 5 percent during the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the President’s 

designee disburses the loan; and 

(B) 9 percent after the end of the period described in subparagraph (A). 

(2) TIMING OF PAYMENTS.—Payments of interest on loans under this Act shall be made 

semiannually. 

(c) NO PREPAYMENT PENALTY.—A loan 

made under this Act shall be prepayable 

without penalty at any time. 

(d) INFORMATION ACCESS.—As a condition 

for the receipt of any financial assistance 

made under this Act, an eligible automobile 

manufacturer shall agree— 

(1) to allow the President’s designee to examine any books, papers, records, or other 

data of the eligible automobile manufacturer, and those of any subsidiary, affiliate, 

or entity holding an ownership interest of 50 

percent or more of such automobile manufacturer, that may be relevant to the financial assistance, including compliance with 

the terms of a loan or any conditions imposed under this Act; and 

(2) to provide in a timely manner any information requested by the President’s designee, including requiring any officer or employee of the eligible automobile manufacturer, any subsidiary, affiliate, or entity referred to in paragraph (1) with respect to 

such manufacturer, or any person having 

possession, custody, or care of the reports 

and records required under paragraph (1), to 

appear before the President’s designee at a 

time and place requested and to provide such 

books, papers, records, or other data, as requested, as may be relevant or material. 

(e) OVERSIGHT OF TRANSACTIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION.— 

(1) DUTY TO INFORM.—During the period in 

which any loan extended under this Act remains outstanding, the eligible automobile 

manufacturer which received such loan shall 

promptly inform the President’s designee 

of— 

(A) any asset sale, investment, contract, 

commitment, or other transaction proposed 

to be entered into by such eligible automobile manufacturer that has a value in excess of $100,000,000; and 

(B) any other material change in the financial condition of such eligible automobile 

manufacturer. 

(2) AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT’S DESIGNEE.—During the period in which any loan 

extended under this Act remains outstanding, the President’s designee may— 

(A) review any asset sale, investment, contract, commitment, or other transaction described in paragraph (1); and 

(B) prohibit the eligible automobile manufacturer which received the loan from consummating any such proposed sale, investment, contract, commitment, or other transaction, if the President’s designee determines that consummation of such transaction would be inconsistent with or detrimental to the long-term viability of the eligible automobile manufacturer. 

H10910 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

(3) PROCEDURES.—The President’s designee 

may establish procedures for conducting any 

review under this subsection. 

(f) CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY.—The terms of any financial assistance 

made under this Act shall provide that if— 

(1) an evaluation by the President’s designee under section 5(b) demonstrates that 

the eligible automobile manufacturer which 

received the financial assistance has failed 

to make adequate progress towards meeting 

the restructuring progress assessment measures established by the President’s designee 

under section 5(a) with respect to such recipient; 

(2) after March 31, 2009, the eligible automobile manufacturer which received the financial assistance fails to submit an acceptable restructuring plan under section 6(b), or 

fails to comply with any conditions or requirement applicable under this Act or applicable fuel efficiency and emissions requirements; or 

(3) after a restructuring plan of an eligible 

automobile manufacturer has been approved 

by the President’s designee, the auto manufacturer fails to make adequate progress in 

the implementation of the plan, as determined by the President’s designee, 

the repayment of any loan may be accelerated to such earlier date or dates as the 

President’s designee may determine and any 

other financial assistance may be cancelled 

by the President’s designee. 

SEC. 12. TAXPAYER PROTECTION. 

(a) WARRANTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The President’s designee 

may not provide any loan under this Act, unless the President’s designee, or such department or agency as is designated for such purpose by the President, receives from the eligible automobile manufacturer— 

(A) in the case of an eligible automobile 

manufacturer, the securities of which are 

traded on a national securities exchange, a 

warrant giving the right to the President’s 

designee to receive nonvoting common stock 

or preferred stock in such eligible automobile manufacturer, or voting stock, with 

respect to which the President’s designee 

agrees not to exercise voting power, as the 

President’s designee determines appropriate; 

or 

(B) in the case of an eligible automobile 

manufacturer other than one described in 

subparagraph (A), a warrant for common or 

preferred stock, or an instrument that is the 

economic equivalent of such a warrant in the 

holding company of the eligible automobile 

manufacturer, or any company that controls 

a majority stake in the eligible automobile 

manufacturer, as determined by the President’s designee. 

(2) AMOUNT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The warrants or instruments described in paragraph (1) shall have a 

value equal to 20 percent of the aggregate 

amount of all loans provided to the eligible 

automobile manufacturer under this Act. 

Such warrants or instruments shall entitle 

the Government to purchase— 

(i) nonvoting common stock, up to a maximum amount of 20 percent of the issued and 

outstanding common stock of — 

(I) the eligible automobile manufacturer; 

or 

(II) in the case of an eligible automobile 

manufacturer, the securities of which are 

not traded on a national securities exchange, 

a holding company or company that controls 

a majority of the stock thereof (in this section referred to as the ‘‘warrant common’’); 

and 

(ii) preferred stock having an aggregate 

liquidation preference equal to 20 percent of 

such aggregate loan amount, less the value 

of common stock available for purchase 

under the warrant common (in this section 

referred to as the ‘‘warrant preferred’’). 

(B) COMMON STOCK WARRANT PRICE.—The 

exercise price on a warrant or instrument described in paragraph (1) shall be— 

(i) the 15-day moving average, as of December 2, 2008, of the market price of the common stock of the eligible automobile manufacturer which received any loan under this 

Act; or 

(ii) in the case of an eligible automobile 

manufacturer, the securities of which are 

not traded on a national securities exchange, 

the economic equivalent of the market price 

described in clause (i), as determined by the 

President’s designee. 

(C) TERMS OF PREFERRED STOCK WARRANT.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The initial exercise price 

for the preferred stock warrant shall be $0.01 

per share or such greater amount as the corporate charter may require as the par value 

per share of the warrant preferred. The Government shall have the right to immediately 

exercise the warrants. 

(ii) REDEMPTION.—The warrant preferred 

may be redeemed at any time after exercise 

of the preferred stock warrant at 100 percent 

of its issue price, plus any accrued and unpaid dividends. 

(iii) OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Other 

terms and conditions of the warrant preferred shall be determined by the President’s 

designee to protect the interests of taxpayers. 

(3) APPLICATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF

LAW.—Except as otherwise provided in this 

section, the requirements for the purchase of 

warrants under section 113(d)(2) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A of Public Law 110–343) shall apply to 

any warrant or instrument described in paragraph (1), including the antidilution protection provisions therein. 

(b) EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—During the period in 

which any financial assistance under this 

Act remains outstanding, the eligible automobile manufacturer which received such assistance shall be subject to— 

(A) the standards established by the President’s designee under paragraph (2); and 

(B) the provisions of section 162(m)(5) of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as applicable. 

(2) STANDARDS REQUIRED.—The President’s 

designee shall require any eligible automobile manufacturer which received any financial assistance under this Act to meet appropriate standards for executive compensation and corporate governance. 

(3) SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.—The standards 

established under paragraph (2) shall include— 

(A) limits on compensation that exclude 

incentives for senior executive officers of an 

eligible automobile manufacturer which received assistance under this Act to take unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten 

the value of such manufacturer during the 

period that the loan is outstanding; 

(B) a provision for the recovery by such 

automobile manufacturer of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a senior executive officer based on statements of earnings, 

gains, or other criteria that are later found 

to be materially inaccurate; 

(C) a prohibition on such automobile manufacturer making any golden parachute payment to a senior executive officer during the 

period that the loan is outstanding; 

(D) a prohibition on such automobile manufacturer paying or accruing any bonus or 

incentive compensation during the period 

that the loan is outstanding to the 25 most 

highly-compensated employees; and 

(E) a prohibition on any compensation plan 

that would encourage manipulation of such 

automobile manufacturer’s reported earnings to enhance the compensation of any of 

its employees. 

(4) DIVESTITURE.—During the period in 

which any financial assistance provided 

under this Act to any eligible automobile 

manufacturer is outstanding, the eligible 

automobile manufacturer may not own or 

lease any private passenger aircraft, or have 

any interest in such aircraft, except that 

such eligible automobile manufacturer shall 

not be treated as being in violation of this 

provision with respect to any aircraft or interest in any aircraft that was owned or held 

by the manufacturer immediately before receiving such assistance, as long as the recipient demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 

President’s designee that all reasonable 

steps are being taken to sell or divest such 

aircraft or interest. 

(5) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions shall apply: 

(A) SENIOR EXECUTIVE OFFICER.—The term 

‘‘senior executive officer’’ means an individual who is 1 of the top 5 most highly paid 

executives of a public company, whose compensation is required to be disclosed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 

and any regulations issued thereunder, and 

non-public company counterparts. 

(B) GOLDEN PARACHUTE PAYMENT.—The 

term ‘‘golden parachute payment’’ means 

any payment to a senior executive officer for 

departure from a company for any reason, 

except for payments for services performed 

or benefits accrued. 

(c) PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.—Except with respect to obligations 

owed pursuant to law to any nonaffiliated 

party or any existing contract with any nonaffiliated party in effect as of December 2, 

2008, no dividends or distributions of any 

kind, or the economic equivalent thereof (as 

determined by the President’s designee), 

may be paid by any eligible automobile manufacturer which receives financial assistance 

under this Act, or any holding company or 

company that controls a majority stake in 

the eligible automobile manufacturer, while 

such financial assistance is outstanding. 

(d) OTHER INTERESTS SUBORDINATED.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an eligible 

automobile manufacturer which received a 

loan under this Act, to the extent permitted 

by the terms of any obligation, liability, or 

debt of the eligible automobile manufacturer 

in effect as of December 2, 2008, any other obligation of such eligible automobile manufacturer shall be subordinate to such loan, 

and such loan shall be senior and prior to all 

obligations, liabilities, and debts of the eligible automobile manufacturer, and such eligible automobile manufacturer shall provide 

to the Government, all available security 

and collateral against which the loans under 

this Act shall be secured. 

(2) APPLICABILITY IN CERTAIN CASES.—In the 

case of an eligible automobile manufacturer 

referred to in paragraph (1), the securities of 

which are not traded on a national securities 

exchange, a loan under this Act to the eligible automobile manufacturer shall— 

(A) be treated as a loan to any holding 

company of, or company that controls a majority stake in, the eligible automobile manufacturer; and 

(B) be senior and prior to all obligations, 

liabilities, and debts of any such holding 

company or company that controls a majority stake in the eligible automobile manufacturer. 

(e) ADDITIONAL TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS.— 

(1) DISCHARGE.—A discharge under title 11, 

United States Code, shall not discharge an 

eligible automobile manufacturer, or any 

successor in interest thereto, from any debt 

for financial assistance received pursuant to 

this Act. 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10911 

(2) EXEMPTION.—Any financial assistance 

provided to an eligible automobile manufacturer under this Act shall be exempt from 

the automatic stay established by section 362 

of title 11, United States Code. 

(3) INTERESTED PARTIES.—Notwithstanding 

any provision of title 11, United States Code, 

any interest in property or equity rights of 

the United States arising from financial assistance provided to an eligible automobile 

manufacturer under this Act shall remain 

unaffected by any plan of reorganization, except as the United States may agree to in 

writing. 

SEC. 13. OVERSIGHT AND AUDITS. 

(a) COMPTROLLER GENERAL OVERSIGHT.— 

(1) SCOPE OF OVERSIGHT.—The Comptroller 

General of the United States shall conduct 

ongoing oversight of the activities and performance of the President’s designee. 

(2) CONDUCT AND ADMINISTRATION OF OVERSIGHT.— 

(A) GAO PRESENCE.—The President’s designee shall provide to the Comptroller General appropriate space and facilities for purposes of this subsection. 

(B) ACCESS TO RECORDS.—To the extent 

otherwise consistent with law, the Comptroller General shall have access, upon request, to any information, data, schedules, 

books, accounts, financial records, reports, 

files, electronic communications, or other 

papers, things, or property belonging to or in 

use by the President’s designee, at such reasonable time as the Comptroller General 

may request. The Comptroller General shall 

be afforded full facilities for verifying transactions with the balances or securities held 

by depositaries, fiscal agents, and 

custodians. The Comptroller General may 

make and retain copies of such books, accounts, and other records as the Comptroller 

General deems appropriate. 

(3) REPORTING.—The Comptroller General 

shall submit reports of findings under this 

section to Congress, regularly and not less 

frequently than once every 60 days. The 

Comptroller General may also submit special 

reports under this subsection, as warranted 

by the findings of its oversight activities. 

(b) SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL.—It shall 

be the duty of the Special Inspector General 

established under section 121 of Public Law 

110-343 to conduct, supervise, and coordinate 

audits and investigations of the President’s 

designee in addition to the duties of the Special Inspector General under such section 

and for such purposes. The Special Inspector 

General shall also have the duties, responsibilities, and authorities of inspectors general under the Inspector General Act of 1978, 

including section 6 of such Act. In the event 

that the Office of the Special Inspector General is terminated, the Inspector General of 

the Department of the Treasury shall assume the responsibilities of the Special Inspector General under this subsection. 

(c) ACCESS TO RECORDS OF BORROWERS BY

GAO.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, during the period in which any financial assistance provided under this Act is 

outstanding, the Comptroller General of the 

United States shall have access, upon request, to any information, data, schedules, 

books, accounts, financial records, reports, 

files, electronic communications, or other 

papers, things, or property belonging to or in 

use by the eligible automobile manufacturer, 

and any subsidiary, affiliate, or entity holding an ownership interest of 50 percent or 

more of such eligible automobile manufacturer (collectively referred to in this section 

as ‘‘related entities’’), and to any officer, director, or other agent or representative of 

the eligible automobile manufacturer and its 

related entities, at such reasonable times as 

the Comptroller General may request. The 

Comptroller General may make and retain 

copies of such books, accounts, and other 

records as the Comptroller General deems 

appropriate. 

SEC. 14. AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS’ STUDY 

ON POTENTIAL MANUFACTURING OF 

TRANSIT VEHICLES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Each eligible automobile 

manufacturer which receives financial assistance under this Act shall conduct an 

analysis of potential uses of any excess production capacity (especially those of former 

sport utility vehicle producers) to make vehicles for sale to public transit agencies, including— 

(1) the current and projected demand for 

bus and rail cars by American public transit 

agencies; 

(2) the potential growth for both sales and 

supplies to such agencies in the short, medium, and long term; 

(3) a description of existing ‘‘Buy America’’ 

provisions, and data provided by the Federal 

Transit Administration regarding the use or 

request of waivers from such provisions; and 

(4) any recommendations as to whether 

such actions would result in a business line 

that makes sense for the automobile manufacturer. 

(b) GAO REVIEW AND REPORT.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall review the analyses conducted under this section, and shall provide reports thereon to the 

Congress and the President’s designee. 

SEC. 15. REPORTING AND MONITORING. 

(a) REPORTING ON CONSUMMATION OF

LOANS.—The President’s designee shall submit a report to the Congress on each bridge 

loan made under section 4 not later than 5 

days after the date of the consummation of 

such loan. 

(b) REPORTING ON RESTRUCTURING

PROGRESS ASSESSMENT MEASURES.—The 

President’s designee shall submit a report to 

the Congress on the restructuring progress 

assessment measures established for each 

manufacturer under section 5(a) not later 

than 10 days after establishing the restructuring progress assessment measures. 

(c) REPORTING ON EVALUATIONS.—The 

President’s designee shall submit a report to 

the Congress containing the detailed findings and conclusions of the President’s designee in connection with the evaluation of 

an eligible automobile manufacturer under 

section 5(b). 

(d) REPORTING ON CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY.—The President’s designee 

shall submit a report to the Congress on the 

exercise of a right under section 11(f) to accelerate indebtedness of an eligible automobile manufacturer under this Act or to 

cancel any other financial assistance provided to such eligible automobile manufacturer, and the facts and circumstances on 

which such exercise was based, before the 

end of the 10-day period beginning on the 

date of the exercise of the right. 

(e) MONITORING.—The President’s designee 

shall monitor the use of loan funds received 

by eligible automobile manufacturers under 

this Act, and shall report to Congress once 

every 90 days (beginning 30 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act) on the 

progress of the ability of the recipient of the 

loan to continue operations and proceed with 

restructuring processes that restore the financial viability of the recipient and promote environmental sustainability. 

SEC. 16. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON LACK OF 

PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING AN 

ACCEPTABLE NEGOTIATED PLAN. 

(a) AUTHORITY TO FACILITATE A NEGOTIATED PLAN.—At any such time as the 

President’s designee determines that action 

is necessary to avoid disruption to the economy or to achieve a negotiated plan, the 

President’s designee shall submit to Congress a report outlining any additional powers and authorities necessary to facilitate 

the completion of a negotiated plan required 

under section 6. 

(b) IMPEDIMENTS TO ACHIEVING NEGOTIATED

PLANS.—If the President’s designee determines, on the basis of an evaluation by the 

President’s designee of the progress being 

made by an eligible automobile manufacturer toward meeting the restructuring 

progress assessment measures established 

under section 5, that adequate progress is 

not being made toward achieving a negotiated plan by March 31, 2009, the President’s 

designee shall submit to Congress a report 

detailing the impediments to achievement of 

a negotiated plan by the eligible automobile 

manufacturer. 

SEC. 17. SUBMISSION OF PLAN TO CONGRESS BY 

THE PRESIDENT’S DESIGNEE. 

Upon submission of a report pursuant to 

section 16(b), the President’s designee shall 

provide to Congress a plan that represents 

the judgement of the President’s designee as 

to the steps necessary to achieve the longterm viability, international competitiveness, and energy efficiency of the eligible 

automobile manufacturer, consistent with 

the factors set forth in section 6(b), including through a negotiated plan, a plan to be 

implemented by legislation, or a reorganization pursuant to chapter 11 of title 11, United 

States Code. 

SEC. 18. GUARANTEE OF LEASES OF QUALIFIED 

TRANSPORTATION PROPERTY. 

(a) GUARANTEE.—Upon the request of a lessee of qualified transportation property, the 

President’s designee shall serve as a guarantor with respect to all obligations of such 

lessee with respect to leases of such qualified 

transportation property. Such guarantee 

shall be on such terms and conditions as are 

determined by the President’s designee, not 

later than 14 days after the date of enactment of this section. 

(b) RECOUPMENT OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Any claims under this section in excess of collateral held for the benefit of the President’s designee shall be paid 

from the General Fund of the Treasury out 

of funds not otherwise appropriated. 

(2) RECOUPMENT FEE.—Subsequent to any 

payment made under paragraph (1), the 

President’s designee shall recoup amounts 

paid under paragraph (1) by establishing a 

fee that is sufficient to recoup the amount of 

the claim payment not later than 3 years 

after the date of such claim payment from 

any lessee or guarantor for whom the claim 

was paid or for whom a guarantee was issued. 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘qualified transportation 

property’’ means domestic property subject 

to a lease that was approved by the Federal 

Transit Administration prior to January 1, 

2006; and 

(2) the term ‘‘guarantor’’ includes, without 

limitation, any guarantor, surety, and payment undertaker. 

SEC. 19. COORDINATION WITH OTHER LAWS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—No provision of this Act 

may be construed as altering, affecting, or 

superseding— 

(1) the provisions of section 129 of division 

A of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2009, relating to funding for the manufacture 

of advanced technology vehicles; 

(2) any existing authority to provide financial assistance or liquidity for purposes of 

the day-to-day operations in the ordinary 

course of business or research and development. 

(b) LIMITATION.—Except to provide bridge 

financing or to implement a restructuring 

H10912 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

plan pursuant to this Act, no funds from the 

United States Treasury may be used for the 

purpose of assisting an eligible automobile 

manufacturer to achieve financial viability 

or otherwise to avoid bankruptcy. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2009 

COST OF LIVING SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR

JUSTICES AND JUDGES.—Pursuant to section 

140 of Public Law 97–92, justices and judges of 

the United States are authorized during fiscal year 2009 to receive a salary adjustment 

in accordance with section 461 of title 28, 

United States Code. 

(d) ANTITRUST PROVISIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraphs (2) 

and (4), the antitrust laws shall not apply to 

meetings, discussions, or consultations 

among an eligible automobile manufacturer 

and its interested parties for the purpose of 

achieving a negotiated plan pursuant to section (6)(a)(2). 

(2) EXCLUSIONS.—Paragraph (1) shall not 

apply with respect to price-fixing, allocating 

a market between competitors, monopolizing 

(or attempting to monopolize) a market, or 

boycotting. 

(3) ANTITRUST AGENCY PARTICIPATION.—The 

Attorney General of the United States and 

the Federal Trade Commission shall, to the 

extent practicable, receive reasonable advance notice of, and be permitted to participate in, each meeting, discussion, or consultation described in paragraph (1). 

(4) PRESERVATION OF ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.—Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to 

preclude the Attorney General of the United 

States or the Federal Trade Commission 

from bringing an enforcement action under 

the antitrust laws for injunctive relief. 

(5) SUNSET.—Paragraph (1) shall apply only 

with respect to meetings, discussions, or 

consultations that occur within the 3-year 

period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(6) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘antitrust laws’’— 

(A) has the same meaning as in subsection 

(a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 

U.S.C. 12(a)), except that such term includes 

section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act (15 U.S.C. 45), to the extent that such 

section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition; and 

(B) includes any provision of State law 

that is similar to the laws referred to in subparagraph (A). 

SEC. 20. TREATMENT OF RESTRUCTURING FOR 

PURPOSES OF APPLYING LIMITATIONS ON NET OPERATING LOSS 

CARRYFORWARDS AND CERTAIN 

BUILT-IN LOSSES. 

Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 shall not apply in the case of an ownership change resulting from this Act or pursuant to a restructuring plan approved under 

this Act. 

SEC. 21. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION. 

Amounts provided by this Act are designated as an emergency requirement and 

necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant 

to section 204(a) of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 

budget for fiscal year 2008. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1534, the bill is 

considered read. 

After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it 

shall be in order to consider the 

amendment printed in House Report 

110–922 if offered by the gentleman 

from Ohio (Mr. LATOURETTE) or his 

designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 

or demand for division of the question, 

shall be considered read, and shall be 

debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent 

and an opponent. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts 

(Mr. FRANK) and the gentleman from 

Alabama (Mr. BACHUS) each will control 30 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Massachusetts. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, at the outset I ask that all 

Members have 5 legislative days within 

which to revise and extend their remarks on this bill and include extraneous remarks and material thereon. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, we consider this bill in 

a context, a context framed by the report last Friday of a massive loss of 

jobs in the American economy. This 

economy is in the worst shape that it 

has been in since the Great Depression. 

We are facing a double hit, a credit 

crisis brought on by a variety of factors, but resulting now in a serious 

lack of confidence on the part of investors and a deterioration in the physical 

parts of the economy, which have combined to cause a serious, deep recession. 

That is relevant because there have 

been suggestions that we could afford 

to allow the three domestically owned 

auto companies to founder, that there 

are other sources of automobiles, that 

they could be required to declare bankruptcy, to, therefore, not pay suppliers, 

to cut back substantially on money 

owed dealers, to reduce by large 

amounts the workforce and the compensation of the workforce, to take one 

of the major factors of the American 

economy and substantially reduce its 

economic impact. 

I think that would have been a mistake in any economic period, but to 

contemplate the severity of that blow 

to our economic activity at this time is 

to invite further deterioration of an 

economy that has already deteriorated 

beyond what people expected and beyond what the American people ought 

to have to tolerate. 

The bill is a limited bill. It is the 

product of a compromise, the terms of 

which were largely dictated by the 

President of the United States. I am 

struck, Mr. Speaker, by the lack of 

confidence that has been expressed on 

the Republican side of this House, not 

in the auto industry, but in George 

Bush and the people he has and will appoint. 

The amount of money here, $15 billion, is a loan. It is a loan far more 

likely to be repaid than many of the 

much larger amounts that the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve, 

working with them, have advanced to 

Citigroup and AIG and the number of 

other entities. 

It is $15 billion because the President 

said no new money, not even money 

from the $700 billion troubled assets 

fund, the TARP. This Congress voted a 

month or two ago, 2 months ago, to advance $25 billion to the auto industry 

to promote innovation, which everyone 

agrees is necessary. It wasn’t just to 

the Big Three, it was to any applicant 

who was going to use this money to try 

to innovate. 

The President said, to our dismay, he 

would veto any legislation trying to 

keep the auto industry out of bankruptcy that used any funds other than 

that $25 billion that had already been 

voted for that purpose. The Speaker, to 

her credit, resisted what I think was a 

strong temptation to engage in a dispute with the President that would 

have killed any effort to get legislation 

and instead, perhaps to his surprise, 

she agreed with him and said we would 

live with that constraint. 

So the amount of money that is here 

is both in amount and, in short, exactly what George Bush wanted. This is 

an amount of money that George Bush 

told us we could make available. 

We have made it available in a form 

that makes it overwhelmingly likely 

that it will be repaid. It is a loan with 

the American Government in a super 

senior position in terms of repayment 

and where there were some potential 

problems with that because of clauses 

in other agreements, heavy collateral. 

So this $15 billion is very likely to be 

returned if the program fails. That’s 

the worst case. 

We will have advanced $15 billion, we 

will get it back in 3 months because 

disaster cannot be averted, but we are 

not willing to say that disaster cannot 

be averted without trying. 

What this bill then says is the President of the United States, George 

Bush, shall designate an administration official to preside over a process of 

hard negotiation with all of those who 

have a share in this industry, the companies, of course, the bondholders, the 

workers, the suppliers and the auto 

dealers, and make it clear to them that 

if they are not willing and able to come 

together and reduce costs and put in 

place a program that makes it possible 

to envision a future in which more efficient cars are made and sold with a 

great likelihood of success, then not 

only will there be no more money than 

the $15 billion, but the $15 billion will 

have to be repaid. 

Well, apparently my Republican colleagues, again, do not think that the 

Bush administration has within its 

ranks anyone capable, with all the help 

that they have been given, of beginning 

that process. Some have said, no, make 

them go bankrupt. 

There is nothing about bankruptcy 

that cannot be accomplished within 

the framework we have said except the 

ability to unilaterally say ‘‘no’’ to this 

or that class of people who are owed 

money. All of the powers that you 

could accomplish in reorganization in a 

bankruptcy are given here, and the enforcement power is that the money will 

be withdrawn if this is not done and 

the entities will collapse. 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10913 

We have provisions in here that make 

it impossible, if the Bush administration and then the Obama administration coming after them, say so to have 

money that was, in part, provided by 

the American taxpayer, used to finance 

activity in other countries. That 

doesn’t mean American investors 

should never be in other countries. It 

does mean that taxpayer dollars made 

available in these circumstances 

shouldn’t go to other countries. Then 

the question is, then, well, why the 

haste? We are hastily reacting to very 

fast-moving events. 

A month ago it did not appear that 

the car companies would be in such 

dire straits. Car companies all over the 

world have been hurt by the credit crisis. Automobiles are paid for by credit. 

As credit has tightened up substantially, and as people have lost their 

jobs, there has been a greater than anticipated fall off in auto sales. Of 

course, the auto companies have made 

mistakes in the past, a lot of people in 

the industry have, including consumers. 

But we find that the rapid deterioration in the general economy, it hasn’t 

caused the problem for the automakers, but it has exacerbated them 

and greatly shortened our time horizon. 

This bill is intended to keep them 

from going bankrupt between now and 

March 31. It does it in a way that will 

allow us to recapture the money if that 

effort fails. It does express the belief 

that, done properly, in conjunction 

with other things, things that could 

unstick the credit market, funds that 

we hope will be made available under 

the troubled assets program to auto 

dealers, who have a very real claim 

here, and we will be pushing for a program that will include them and funding be made available. Several Members of this House have spoken out 

strongly in favor of doing that. 

We believe it is possible, and likely, 

that as the economy gets better, and as 

they continue the movements they 

have already made towards cars that 

are likely to sell and be more energy 

efficient, that we can survive this. 

There are some Members who have 

consistently opposed any intervention, 

but this administration sent over $100 

billion to AIG. Citigroup has been the 

recipient of very large amounts of 

money. I do not understand how people 

can have not made any effort to undo 

the administration’s intervention with 

AIG, well over $100 billion, and then 

try and stop about one-seventh of that 

sum as a loan to the auto companies. 

Yes, credit and finance are important, but the physical work done by 

working class and middle-class Americans in auto companies, in car dealerships, in the small businesses that are 

other suppliers, cumulatively, are just 

as important. To give up now on the 

auto industry would be to condemn the 

American economy at one of its most 

vulnerable periods in our economic history to a degree of further hurt, and 

the American people deserve better. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, December 10, 2008. 

Hon. BARNEY FRANK, 

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN FRANK: This is to memorialize the provisions in H.R. 7321, the ‘‘Auto 

Industry Financing and Restructuring Act,’’ 

that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the 

Committee on the Judiciary. In particular, 

there are several provisions in section 12(d) 

and (e) that alter the normal operation of 

the bankruptcy laws; section 19(c) provides 

the annual cost-of-living salary adjustment 

for the federal judiciary: and section 19(d) 

precludes private antitrust suits regarding 

certain consultations between a covered 

automaker and its employees, dealers, suppliers, and creditors. 

In agreeing to be discharged from further 

consideration of the bill, in order that it 

may proceed without delay to the House 

floor for consideration, the Judiciary Committee does not waive any jurisdiction over 

subject matter contained in this or similar 

legislation. We also reserve the right to seek 

appointment of an appropriate number of 

conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this important legislation, and 

would ask your support if such a request is 

made. 

I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. 

Thank you for your attention to this request, and for the cooperative relationship 

between our two committees. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., 

Chairman. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we all recognize the importance 

of our domestic automobile industry. 

We understand that the bankruptcy of 

either GM or Chrysler would have a 

cascading effect on the other manufacturers. We understand that the suppliers, the auto part manufacturers 

could fail. We also understand that 

dealerships are at risk, millions of 

jobs, families in jeopardy. 

b 1830 

And even though we all want the industry to succeed, I cannot support 

this plan because this plan is a plan to 

spend taxpayer money without any 

real promise or ability to return the industry to profitability. In my view, any 

aid for the automobile industry should 

be limited to transitional assistance as 

a part of a fundamental restructuring 

plan and should fully protect the taxpayer, and this legislation does not 

meet that standard. 

Some of the worst bills to come out 

of Congress are when we rush to judgment, and I fear that is exactly what 

we are doing here. Members have only 

had one or two hours to examine the 

text of this legislation. It was a measure which was the product of a closeddoor negotiation between the Democratic Congress and the administration. It occurred outside the normal 

legislative process and the watchful 

eyes of the American people. 

I see several glaring omissions or 

flaws in my cursory examination. We 

are creating a new car czar to manage 

these three companies from Washington; not a CEO, but a car czar. 

Second, and this probably is the most 

troubling, this legislation actually imposes new and expensive mandates on 

our automobile companies. If they are 

in such bad shape that they need billions of dollars of taxpayer help, and 

we acknowledge that they are in bad 

shape, why are we imposing new, expensive mandates? This legislation, for 

instance, mandates that the companies 

comply with State laws that imposed 

inefficient and potentially excessive 

emissions standards instead of the 

more reasonable Federal laws. That 

cries in the face of logic under the circumstances. 

Third, this legislation imposes Federal Government management on the 

Big Three, the wisdom of Washington. 

It is clear that the management of 

these companies have made mistakes, 

many mistakes, but a solution to that 

to set up a command and control in 

Washington D.C. with a Federal bureaucrat attempting to run the domestic automobile industry is exactly the 

wrong solution. 

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad process and 

it is a bad bill and one I fear, as we 

have so often done with these bailouts, 

we will come to regret. I urge a no 

vote. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 

note that I am surprised to hear my 

friend argue that the bankruptcy 

courts have more automotive expertise 

and engineering and finance and industrial policy expertise than is present in 

the whole Bush administration. I think 

he is too pessimistic about that and 

too much supportive of the bankruptcy 

process. 

Second, I would also just recall the 

very thoughtful remark of our colleague from Texas, Ms. JACKSON-LEE, 

who noted that those who thought 

bankruptcy was a disaster for mortgages appear to see it as a panacea for 

automobiles. Many of us fail to see how 

that transformation took place. 

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 

from Detroit (Ms. KILPATRICK). 

(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was 

given permission to revise and extend 

her remarks.) 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I 

first want to thank Chairman BARNEY

FRANK and his entire Financial Services team and committee for the outstanding work they have done with 

this very difficult situation for the last 

month or so. Thank you, BARNEY, and 

for the full committee. The Michigan 

delegation in a bipartisan way worked 

feverishly to make this happen. Thank 

you very much. 

America is at a crossroads, a crossroads on whether America will be a 

first-rate country as we move through 

this century. Seventy years ago, my 

grandfather, as well as hundreds of others, came to this part of the country 

H10914 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

from South Carolina to the midwest, to 

the manufacturing base of America, 

the base that built the middle-class in 

this country. Without the manufacturing, there would be no middle-class 

in America. Do we want to forsake that 

today? I hope not. 

The American automobile industry is 

the military equipment builders of our 

country, from World War II and every 

war thereafter, building the tanks, the 

ammunition, the body armor and the 

like. It will be a mistake for us if we 

don’t preserve this industry. 

Three million-plus direct jobs with 

another 10 million from insurance, 

health care, security. You name it, 

those are 13.6 million Americans affected by this automobile industry. We 

must preserve it. 

The middle class is dwindling as we 

speak. With all the problems America 

has, this is not the time to kill, if you 

will, the only manufacturing base we 

have left in our country. We already 

yielded the electronics industry. We 

yielded the fabric and the garment industry. Manufacturing is one of the 

tools that can keep our country alive. 

I hope you will vote today and save 

this most vital industry. 

I mentioned my grandfather. I am 

the next generation after that. Because 

of the manufacturing industry, the 

automobile industry specifically, we 

have been able to send generations of 

young people who are now 40, 50, 60 

years old to college, the manufacturing 

industry. 

Vote for this bill. Don’t do it wrong. 

Let’s do it right. 

Giving thanks to God, who is the power, 

force and director of my life, I thank the 

Democratic Leadership and my colleagues in 

the Michigan delegation for their continued 

hard work, objective analysis and hard questions for both automobile manufacturers and 

taxpayers. As an enthusiastic supporter of the 

automotive industry, I, along with the unanimous agreement of the Michigan delegation, 

seek a balanced, fair solution for American 

taxpayers, manufacturers, dealers, and suppliers to the automobile industry. A large part 

of that solution is this bill, crafted by Chairman 

FRANK and Members of the House Financial 

Services Committee on which I once served. 

This bill will provide $15 billion in bridge loans 

to help struggling automakers survive while 

they prepare plans to restructure their companies to build more competitive, fuel-efficient, 

and technologically-advanced vehicles. This 

assistance will not only help manufacturers, 

but it will help the workers, the dealers, the 

suppliers and the 13 million jobs that are directly and indirectly affected by the largest industry in our Nation—the automobile industry. 

In addition, this bill, which would amend current law, demands taxpayer protections such 

as limits to executive compensation, including 

a ban on so-called ‘‘golden parachute’’ payments, a prohibition on dividend payments 

over the life of the loans, rigorous independent 

oversight, and provisions for the government 

taking warrants and allowing the taxpayer to 

profit in any upside of the restructuring. This is 

a fair balance for both the manufacturers and 

American taxpayers. If the Big Three were to 

collapse, there would be a loss of personal income of close to $400 billion, with a combined 

loss of tax receipts of $156 billion, over 3 

years, according to the Center for Automotive 

Research. With the interdependence of Mexico, Canada and the United States because of 

the North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA), this vastly underestimates the ultimate impact if the Big Three were to go bankrupt. 

With the recent loss of more than half a million jobs in one month, in our Nation, Federal 

assistance to the automotive industry is needed immediately for our economic, military, and 

energy security and safety. A government-supported restructuring of the auto industry is urgently needed for our economic, military and 

energy security. General Wesley Clark recently wrote that ‘‘some economists question 

the wisdom of Washington’s intervening to 

help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But 

we must act: aiding the American automobile 

industry is not only an economic imperative, 

but also a national security imperative.’’ 

This is an opportunity for Congress to do 

four things. One, it is an opportunity to get our 

country to energy security or energy independence. Two, it is a chance to ensure that, unlike our textile and electronics industry, to preserve and protect our manufacturing base, the 

last industry in which America still holds a 

slight but precarious lead. Three, it can be a 

way in which we get the manufacturers toward 

building the vehicles that Congress mandated 

that they build. Four, we can preserve the jobs 

and businesses of dealers and suppliers. In all 

of the discussions of saving the manufacturers, there has been little, if any, discussion to 

save the thousands of automobile dealers and 

suppliers to the automotive industry. 

Congress has been advocating that our 

country become either energy independent or 

have energy security. Indeed, President Richard Nixon challenged that our Nation become 

independent on foreign oil in the early 1970s. 

Although the automotive industry is in a crisis, 

this is truly an opportunity to start a major reorganization and reprogramming of the entire 

automotive industry. In less than 2 years, 

General Motors will produce the first practical 

all-electric motor vehicle. This is a welcome 

opportunity, and is a development that all 

Americans should embrace. By being the first 

to produce a battery that can get hundreds of 

miles per charge, the United States can be the 

first in this manufacturing technology. This will 

create thousands of green jobs, clean up the 

air, and make us less dependent on foreign 

sources of fuel. This achievement is right 

around the corner, as GM is set to bring the 

Chevy Volt to market in less than 2 years. In 

less than 10 years, these batteries and fuel 

cells can be, and should be, built in the United 

States. 

Second, we need to preserve the automotive industry as it is the base of manufacturing in the United States. Second only to the 

strong faith that Americans have in one another is the strength of our economy. Our 

modern economy was built by companies like 

General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. These 

are the companies that essentially built this 

country to victory in World War II and every 

military conflict we have had ever since. 

These companies not only built the tanks, the 

Jeeps, the trucks that support the women and 

men in our military, they often created the 

technologies that allow us to have navigational 

systems in our cars, brakes that last for thousands of miles, and protect our bodies in accidents. We cannot afford to lose this innovative 

intellectual property. 

The auto industry has come to the rescue, 

once again, for our women and men in the 

military. The Humvee, the Stryker, and the 

mine-resistant ambush vehicles, and the like 

are built primarily in Michigan but entirely in 

the United States. As General Wesley Clark 

said, ‘‘the lives of hundreds of soldiers and 

marines have been saved, and their tasks 

made more achievable, by the efforts of the 

American automotive industry. And unlike in 

World War II, America didn’t have to divert 

much civilian capacity to meet these military 

needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, 

those needs could not have been quickly 

met.’’ Our economy and our troops cannot 

survive the loss of the automotive industry. 

Third, the manufacturers know what is at 

stake today. It is not only their individual survival, but whether our country suffers a recession or a depression. We cannot afford, at this 

perilous time in our economy, the shut down 

of any company. Any form of bankruptcy 

would tear what little confidence consumers 

have in the auto industry to shreds by decimating consumer demand and forcing thousands of suppliers who need the cash flow 

from the auto manufacturers into immediate 

default. This legislation would allow time and 

cash for the manufacturers to make the necessary and needed change in their vehicles, 

again mandated by Congress, for the longterm energy self-sufficiency and environmental 

protection we seek. This legislation does just 

that. 

One in every 10 jobs in the United States is 

somehow linked to the automotive industry. 

After the purchase of a home, the purchase of 

an automobile is the largest purchase for the 

overwhelming majority of America’s consumers. Michigan, specifically my home city of 

Detroit, has been the home of the automotive 

industry for decades. More than 13 million 

jobs are directly or indirectly rely on the automotive industry. The losses of the automotive 

industry have been massive. In 2005, General 

Motors, which is headquartered in my Congressional District, lost more than $5.6 billion 

on its North America operations alone, with 

Ford losing $5.5 billion during the same period 

of time. GM’s share of the market, which used 

to be 36 percent in 1990, had shrunk to 26 

percent in 2005. Ford’s 1990 share of the 

market, which was 24 percent, was 17 percent 

2 years ago. Production for Ford and GM has 

dropped 26 percent since 1999. 

In the wake of these losses, Michigan and 

our country have lost a significant number of 

jobs. Both GM and Ford announced a series 

of plant closings in North America, with an estimated loss of 60,000 jobs through layoffs 

and early retirement buy-outs. According to 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 the 

automotive industry lost a total of 215,000 

jobs, and stated that ‘‘industry employment is 

headed downward and is not likely to recover 

for several years.’’ This situation does not get 

any better for those related industries supplying automobile parts, providing insurance 

for automobiles, or selling vehicles wholesale 

or retail. 

While domestic manufacturers are not entirely blameless for these losses, a significant 

factor has been the way in which China has 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10915 

done business with the Big Three. One of the 

U.S./China Commission’s conclusions, to 

which I testified 2 years ago, was ‘‘the many 

subsidies provided by the Chinese government to the auto industry will quickly distort 

the nature of the market. This will be true especially in the United States, where markets 

are most open. The Chinese challenge to the 

U.S. auto industry is a significant assault on 

American manufacturing, and that assault is 

increasing in magnitude and in pace.’’ Are we 

willing to concede to other countries, perhaps 

China, our manufacturing base? 

Finally, I am worried about the health of 

automobile dealers and suppliers, specifically 

ethnic minority automobile dealers and suppliers. It is my understanding from experts in 

the field that up to 75 percent of ethnic minority new car dealers, if they do not receive financial assistance within 60 days, will fail. In 

a meeting two weeks ago with the Speaker 

and the House Democratic leadership, the 

manufacturers estimated that more than 700 

dealers are expected to close their doors before the end of the year. In all of this discussion about helping the manufacturers, it is only 

fair that some of this help go directly to the 

ethnic minority dealers and suppliers who are 

the backbone of their communities and of the 

automotive industry. Ethnic dealers and suppliers are first generation dealers and suppliers and simply do not have the economy of 

scale of their majority counterparts. As we 

move forward with this legislation, it is my 

hope that we provide immediate assistance to 

those who most need it—ethnic minority automobile dealers and suppliers. 

We face tough times. The automotive industry can succeed, with the help of Congress, 

once again. The automotive industry has 

made mistakes, and all of the manufacturers 

present will tell you that I have worked with 

them to improve their product, outreach, and 

business model. Here, in Washington, DC, it is 

often hard for legislators to truly appreciate 

how difficult life is for the rest of America. In 

Michigan, we face record foreclosures, unemployment and job loss from manufacturing. We 

must save the automobile industry for the future of not only the industry but for the state 

of Michigan and our country. We must not repeat the mistakes we made in giving away our 

textile and electronics industry to other countries. We must do all we can to retain this vital 

segment of America. 

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that the gentleman 

from Texas (Mr. HENSARLING) control 

my time and that he be able to yield 

time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. BACHUS. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 

PAUL) for 2 minutes. 

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It doesn’t make a 

whole lot of sense. But I am concerned 

that we are narrowed down on a problem of the car industry, which is a significant problem, but we are dealing 

with $15 billion here. But if you look at 

the grand problem we have, it is much, 

much bigger, and it seems like we don’t 

pay much attention to it. 

The problems that we are facing 

today and the problems that we have 

been trying to solve in these last 6 

months were predictable. It had been 

building for a good many years. We can 

date it back to 1971. We have had a financial bubble building, so there were 

many who predicted that the climax 

would be exactly as we are witnessing. 

But we don’t seem to want to go back 

and find out how financial bubbles 

form and why they burst. Instead, we 

just carry on doing the same old thing 

and never look back. We spend more 

money, we run up more debt, we print 

more money, and we think that is 

going to solve the problem that was 

created by spending too much money, 

running up debt, printing too much 

money. And here we are today, we are 

talking about tinkering on the edges 

without dealing with the big problem. 

The Federal Reserve has literally 

created over $2 trillion here in the last 

several months, at least in obligations, 

and that is outside the realm of the 

Congress. We don’t even audit the Federal Reserve. They create this money, 

and when the Fed Chairman comes before our committee and we ask, well, 

where did you dispose of this $2 trillion 

that you have created recently, he says 

well, it is not your business. That is 

not necessary. Under the law, he 

doesn’t even have to tell us. 

So this is how out of control our 

problem is. Sure, there is a lot of debt 

in the economy, and once a government or a corporation gets an excessive 

amount of debt, it is never paid for. So, 

yes, we can transfer the debt to others. 

We are dealing with only finding victims. We cannot get rid of the debt, 

whether it is our national debt or 

whether it is corporate debt, but we 

have to put it on somebody else. We 

need to look at the cause of these bubbles, and it has to do with monetary 

policy and the Federal Reserve system. 

Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that 

Congress bears much culpability for 

the current condition of the United 

States auto industry, and therefore 

Congress should act to help that industry. We should be repealing costly regulations we have imposed on domestic 

auto manufactures. Congress should 

also be considering legislation like 

H.R. 7273 and H.R. 7278, which reduces 

taxes on American consumers to make 

it easier for them to purchase American automobiles. 

Unfortunately, instead of repealing 

regulations and cutting taxes, Congress 

is nationalizing the automakers by giving them access to $14 billion of taxpayer funds in return for giving the 

federal government control over the 

management of these firms. Mr. Speaker, the federal government has neither 

the competence nor the constitutional 

authority to tell private companies, 

such as automakers, how to run their 

businesses. Yet, the bailout proposal 

forces automobile manufacturers to 

submit their business plans for the approval of a federal ‘‘car czar.’’ This czar 

will not only have the authority to approve the automakers’ restructuring 

plan, but will also monitor implementation of the plans. The czar will also 

be able to stop transactions that are 

‘‘inconsistent with the companies’ 

long-term viability.’’ Of course, the 

czar has the sole authority to determine what transactions are ‘‘inconsistent with the companies’ long-term 

viability.’’ 

I would have thought that failed experiments with central planning and 

government control of business that 

wrought so much harm in the last century would have taught my colleagues 

the folly of making businesses obey 

politicians and bureaucrats instead of 

heeding the wishes of consumers, employees, and stockholders. 

The alternative proposal is less costly to the taxpayer; therefore I will vote 

for it if offered as a motion to recommit. However, I am troubled that the 

proposal endorses the notion that the 

federal government should play both a 

financial and managerial role in restoring the American automobile industry. 

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we are 

not given a chance to vote for a true 

free-market approach; instead we are 

asked to choose between two types of 

government interference with the market. 

Providing this $14 billion in loan 

guarantees will contribute to the already fragile economy by increasing 

the federal debt and thus creating either increased inflation or increased 

taxes. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider how many businesses will not be started, jobs will not 

be created, and consumer desires will 

remain unfulfilled because the resources to start those business and create those jobs were taken from the private sector for the auto bailout. I urge 

my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional bill that will further the 

growth of government and damage the 

American economy. Instead, Congress 

should help the American auto industry, and all American business, by cutting taxes and regulations. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the 

dean of the House and a great expert 

over time on the auto industry, the 

gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL). 

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given 

permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a 

bridge loan. Without this bridge, we 

are going to fall into the deepest calamity this country has seen since the 

Great Depression. I call on you to note 

that one in seven jobs in this country 

is in the auto industry. Put these companies into bankruptcy and you will 

bankrupt the entire industry, from the 

dealers to the suppliers to the small 

businessmen who depend upon this. 

That is how bad the situation is. All we 

ask is a chance to save the industry 

and to save the millions of Americans 

H10916 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

who work there and who contribute to 

the growth of this country. 

I saw the Depression. I know what 

happened: people standing on the corners without hope, somewhere around 

33 percent of Americans without jobs. 

That is where we are going back to if 

we don’t do something about this, and 

I don’t want to hear any of my colleagues say, DINGELL, we didn’t know 

what was going to happen. All we 

thought was if we put them into bankruptcy, everything would be fine. 

Well, it won’t. Bankruptcy will simply take down every dealer, every supplier and everybody who is in the auto 

industry, including the three major 

companies, and it will destroy the industrial base of the United States, 

what little remains. 

I am here to tell you, this is too big 

a disaster for us to invite. Imagine a 

nation with double digit unemployment. That is what we are going to be 

talking about. And I ask you, how can 

you turn over $1.2 billion to the Wall 

Streeters who brought about this calamity when you do nothing? 

Invest in America. Support this legislation, which has been brilliantly handled by the chairman of committee, to 

whom I express my praise and my gratitude for his leadership, and I thank 

our Speaker for what it is she has done 

in making this possible. 

This bill is salvation. Vote against it 

and look forward to a terrible calamity. Vote for it and give hope to millions of Americans who desperately 

need it and who are now existing on 

the edge of both terror, want, deprivation and worry of the most gross sort. 

If you want to see other industries 

collapse, if you want to see what is left 

of the housing industry die, if you want 

to see other industries in this country 

suffer and hurt, vote against this bill. 

That is what has happened. 

I urge my colleagues, vote for this 

bill. It is hope. It is salvation for this 

country. It is the future of this country. Yes, it is going to cost more and 

we are going to have to do it. But, 

again, I remind you, invest in America. 

Invest in the future of your people. Invest in the future and the hopes and 

the dreams and the desires of Americans. 

Without that, all I can say to you is 

a terrible disaster looms. Let us at all 

costs prevent that. Let us at all costs 

see to it that we protect the future, the 

hopes, the dreams of millions of hardworking Americans, without whom 

there is no hope for this country. 

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of the 

worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. What is at stake today is nothing less 

than the livelihoods of millions of American 

workers. They are counting on us today to 

pass legislation that will give the domestic 

automakers the loans they need to survive this 

financial crisis. If we fail to act we will plunge 

this nation further into recession, add hundreds of thousands to the employment rolls in 

a matter of weeks, and deliver a crippling blow 

to the manufacturing sector from which it may 

never recover. As it stated on the cover of a 

special edition of the Detroit Free Press that 

was delivered to every Member’s office, now 

is the time for us to ‘‘Invest in America.’’ 

The legislation we are voting on has been 

described as offering a ‘‘bridge loan’’ to the 

domestic automakers. It is important to recognize where this bridge will lead us, and the 

consequences that will befall our nation if we 

fail to act. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler 

have made significant investments into new 

vehicle technologies, such as plug-in hybrids 

and electric vehicles. If we allow the automakers to continue to operate, and use the 

oversight authority provided for in this bill to 

guide them quickly towards the production of 

more fuel efficient vehicles, we can create the 

next generation of green manufacturing jobs 

here in this country. If the Big 3 fail we will 

have ceded these jobs to our competitors in 

China, South Korea, and Japan. These loans 

offer not just a bridge to solvency for the Big 

3, but a bridge to a more vibrant and productive economy for all of us. 

Protecting the economy was supposed to be 

the reason we acted to rescue Wall Street and 

save failing financial institutions. According to 

statistics released by the Board of Governors 

of the Federal Reserve System, more than 

$650 billion has been lent to financial institutions since the beginning of this financial crisis, and an additional $350 billion has been 

used to purchase private assets. This is in addition to the more than $200 billion in TARP 

funds that the Treasury Department has used 

to shore up financial institutions. It is unconscionable that approximately $1.2 trillion has 

now been sent to Wall Street, but there are 

those who would object to spending $15 billion 

to save 3 million blue collar jobs. 

Before you cast your vote today, I would 

urge all of you to consider what this country 

would look like without a domestic automobile 

industry. Ask yourselves how many automobile dealerships or parts suppliers operate 

in your District, and how many of them will be 

forced to follow the Big 3 into bankruptcy. 

Imagine what a nation with double digit employment rates will look like, and what burden 

that will place on the states and on Federal 

Government. Ask yourselves why every other 

industrialized country is taking steps to provide 

support for their own automakers, and why 

they seem to place a higher value on good 

paying middle class jobs than we do. I urge 

my colleagues to consider these questions, 

and to support the legislation before us today. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 2 minutes to a dear friend, a great 

protector of our Constitution, one of 

the great champions of the taxpayer, 

the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. 

FEENEY). 

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

my dear friend from Texas for yielding. 

It is an enormous challenge to follow a 

distinguished gentleman, the dean of 

the House from Michigan, who comes 

and asks us to invest in America. Indeed, all of us feel passionately about 

the investors and, more importantly, 

the workers, not just in Michigan, but 

around the country, that are currently 

dependent on the automobile industry 

in America. 

But, as the gentleman from Michigan 

pleaded we ought to invest in America, 

the truth of the matter is the reason 

we are here tonight is that nobody in 

their right mind is willing to invest 

their own money in a failed and antiquated model. So they are asking Congress to confiscate money from taxpayers to make an investment. 

That is what this is about. It is a 

short-term bailout so we can get until 

March so that much, much more 

money will be spent bailing out these 

failed and antiquated industries. 

There are people in Florida hurting, 

not just in the automobile industry. 

We have got automobile dealers and 

salespeople and parts manufacturers. 

Our real estate industry is devastated, 

our time share industry, our theme 

park industry, our hotels and motels 

and restaurants. 

But the truth of the matter is, micromanaging a business from Washington 

is the supreme act of hubris. It will 

never work. No matter how much the 

administration, no matter how much 

the Congress wants to do the right 

thing, they will hurt us. 

110 years ago, the United States Congress probably felt bad for people that 

manufactured buggy whips and horse 

carriages. We could have bailed them 

out. We could have created a buggy 

whip and horse carriage czar. It would 

not have helped America move towards 

prosperity and freedom. And, unfortunately, this is a terrible idea that will 

punish taxpayers and just prolong the 

agony. I ask us to vote for freedom and 

free markets and reject this bailout. 

b 1845 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, I think we’ve gotten an imbalance of time here, so if it is all right 

with the gentleman from Texas, I 

would reserve and defer to him for another speaker or two to even out the 

time. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at 

this time I would yield 1 minute to the 

gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. MILLER.) 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. 

Speaker, you know, after Hurricane 

Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, this 

Congress passed well over $133 billion 

of assistance to that region, and we did 

so because Americans were hurting and 

they needed assistance. And we also did 

it because that region was vital to our 

energy industry that plays such a critical role in our national economy. 

And I will also note that Americans, 

those taxpayers from my home State of 

Michigan and across this great Nation, 

contributed to that effort. 

Now our industrial economy has been 

hit by a Category 5 economic hurricane 

brought on by the meltdown in the financial industry. And this has been a 

disaster which has hit my State hard, 

and people are hurting all across America. Credit is simply not available to 

enough consumers to keep the cash 

flow our automakers need and, because 

of this, millions of jobs across this Nation are at risk. And I cannot believe 

that this Congress will allow the backbone of our manufacturing and industrial sector to be swept away, because 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10917 

I believe that most Members will agree 

that America cannot be a great Nation 

without a strong industrial base. 

Think about the millions of Americans who are asking us to do the right 

thing, and support this vital legislation. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I 

would continue to reserve. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at 

this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, 

the incoming chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Dr. PRICE. 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, 

this is certainly a very serious time 

and a remarkably challenging issue. 

The good news is that there are positive solutions that are available. 

We’ve been told that the bill before 

us tonight is a limited bill. I would ask 

my colleagues, compared to what? 

There are many reasons that one 

might oppose this bill and support 

some positive, tried-and-true solutions, 

but I would suggest that the most important issue upon which to oppose 

this bill is on Page 15, under the authority of the car czar, which says that 

the President’s designee, or the car 

czar, may prohibit the eligible automobile manufacturer which received 

the loan, from consummating any such 

proposed sale, investment, contract, 

commitment or other transaction. 

That means, Mr. Speaker, that one individual will have complete authority 

and power over three private American 

automobile manufacturers. That’s a 

level of power in one individual, one 

bureaucrat, that is inconsistent, I 

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with both 

American values and with American 

solutions. 

Now, what’s the solution? Well, it’s a 

tried-and-true process that thousands 

of companies, large and small, are able 

to go through, a legal, a court-ordered, 

a court-approved reorganization and 

restructuring. It allows all stakeholders to come to the table and make 

concessions. It requires all stakeholders to come to the table and make 

concessions, and that’s what’s going to 

be necessary to allow our automobile 

manufacturers to get through this and 

come out on the other end vibrant and 

vital entities in the American marketplace. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 

oppose this and to support a positive, 

tried-and-true solution. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 

say that my friend from Georgia apparently doesn’t trust the auto companies 

to know what’s in their own interest. 

He says that the provision in our bill 

that gives the administrator the ability to cancel a decision, which we have 

in there as protection against money 

being sent overseas, is way too interventionist, and instead, they’d be better off with bankruptcy. That’s a 

choice they will be free to make under 

this bill. 

This bill doesn’t force anybody to 

apply for the money. Any company 

that thinks the provisions of this bill 

are too burdensome and too interventionist retains the full authority to run 

to bankruptcy. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will 

say this. I yield myself 15 seconds. 

They think bankruptcy is a lot less attractive than the gentleman from 

Georgia. But understand, he says, protect the companies from this intervention which keeps money from being 

sent overseas. Let them go bankrupt. 

None of them want to make that 

choice, but if they do, this bill leaves 

them free to do it. It doesn’t force 

them to take the money. They still 

have the joys of bankruptcy which the 

gentleman from Georgia explained to 

them. 

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 

from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH). 

Mr. KUCINICH. I would like to enter 

into the RECORD an article from the 

Economic Policy Institute which says 

that the shutdown of one or more U.S. 

automakers could eliminate up to 3.3 

million U.S. jobs. 

[From the Economic Policy Institute, Dec. 3, 

2008] 

WHEN GIANTS FALL: SHUTDOWN OF ONE OR

MORE U.S. AUTOMAKERS COULD ELIMINATE UP

TO 3.3 MILLION U.S. JOBS

(By Robert E. Scott) 

The U.S. motor vehicle industry is one of 

the largest, most complex and highly integrated sectors of the U.S. economy. The 

bankruptcy of one or more of the U.S. automakers and a collapse of the domestic auto 

assembly industry could eliminate up to 3.3 

million U.S. jobs within the next year. The 

collapse of just one company, General Motors (GM), would lead to an estimated reduction of 900,000 jobs. Using the range of jobloss estimates, unemployment would rise by 

3.0 to 8.9 percentage points in the nine hardest hit states in the United States. Jobs 

losses would be widespread throughout the 

U.S. economy. After the U.S. auto market 

recovers from the current historic recession 

the U.S. trade deficit could rise by at least 

$110 billion per year as imported vehicles displace domestic brands, increasing the deficit 

by 16% and putting additional downward 

pressure on the U.S. dollar and living standards. 

In addition to its finding that a bankruptcy-related shutdown of the U.S. motor 

vehicle industry could cost up to 3.3 million 

U.S. jobs, this study finds: 

The 900,000 to 3.3 million jobs lost nationwide would be distributed among all 50 states 

and the District of Columbia, with the biggest losers, in numeric terms: Michigan 

(112,500 to 407,300 jobs lost), California (84,500 

to 305,900 jobs), Ohio (60,500 to 219,100 jobs), 

Texas (55,200 to 200,000), Illinois (42,800 to 

154,900), Indiana (40,700 to 147,300), and New 

York (39,900 to 144,600) (Table 2a). 

The hardest-hit states, as a share of total 

state employment, are: Michigan (up to 

407,300 jobs, 8.9% of state employment), Indiana (up to 147,300 jobs, 5.0% of employment), 

Kentucky (up to 75,000 jobs, 4.2% of employment), Alabama (up to 76,100 jobs, 4.0% of 

employment), Tennessee (up to 106,400, 4.0% 

of employment), and Ohio (up to 219,100 jobs, 

4.0% of employment) (Table 2b). 

Between 113,900 and 412,600 jobs would be 

lost in the motor vehicle and parts industries alone. Other hard hit manufacturing 

sectors include fabricated metal products (up 

to 60,500 jobs lost), primary metals (up to 

33,700 jobs lost), plastic and rubber products 

(up to 23,600 jobs lost), non-electrical machinery (up to 19,800 jobs lost) and computer 

and electronic parts (up to 16,800 jobs lost) 

(Table 4). 

Service industries would also experience 

massive job losses including wholesale trade 

(up to 96,400 jobs lost), retail trade (up to 

86,600 jobs lost), transportation (up to 69,6500 

jobs lost), finance and insurance (up to 30,300 

jobs lost), professional, scientific, and technical services (up to 76,300 jobs lost), and administrative support and temp help services 

(up to 55,300 jobs lost) (Table 4). 

Jobs in the auto industry are some of the 

best paid in the economy, and when workers 

spend those wages they generate (on average) about 1.7 additional jobs for each job 

supported in the auto and related sectors. 

Thus, an auto industry shutdown would 

eliminate between 576,700 and 2.1 million ‘‘respending’’ jobs in the domestic economy 

(Table 4). These would constitute the bulk of 

the jobs displaced by an auto industry bankruptcy. 

If the Big Three auto firms shut down, the 

U.S. trade deficit would rise by $109.3 billion, 

a significant (15.6%) increase in the U.S. 

goods and services trade deficit relative to 

2007 levels. This increase would substantially 

exceed the combined U.S. goods trade deficit 

with Japan and South Korea in 2007 ($95.7 billion), which was second only to the U.S. deficit with China. Overall U.S. motor vehicle 

exports would fall by 61%, total imports 

would rise by 21%, and the U.S. auto trade 

deficit would rise from $123.5 billion to $232.8 

billion (88%). 

CONCLUSION

The bankruptcy of one or more U.S.-based 

automakers would lead to the shutdown of 

significant portions of the U.S. motor vehicle industry. This would, in turn, cause a 

wave of plant closures and bankruptcies 

throughout the manufacturing and services 

sectors of our economy. Under this scenario, 

as many as an estimated 3.3 million U.S. jobs 

would be eliminated, with thousands of jobs 

lost in every state. Massive increases in unemployment would result. But this would 

just be the first wave of consequences of an 

auto industry bankruptcy. Massive job loss 

and community disruption would result. Increased government payments and tax losses 

alone would exceed $150 billion in the first 

three years following bankruptcy of all three 

domestic auto companies, according to Code 

et al. (2008). 

An airline-style (Chapter 11) bankruptcy 

re-organization is not an option for U.S.- 

based automakers. They have already extensively restructured product lines and labor 

contracts. Academic experts (Helper and 

MacDuffie 2008) and the industry itself have 

put forth restructuring plans that include 

independent oversight committees and regular performance benchmarking tied to future funding. These plans provide the foundation for a rebuilt, restructured domestic 

auto industry that is ready to compete and 

deliver good, sustainable U.S. jobs for the future. The alternative is simply too destructive to contemplate. 

We have to understand that the implications of the failure of this legislation means that there are many industries across America that are going to 

be adversely affected, including tens of 

thousands of jobs in plastics, in rubber 

products, in primary metal, in fabricated metal products, in machinery, 

in computer and electronic products, in 

semiconductors, in wholesale trade and 

retail trade, in transportation, in finance and insurance, in professional, 

H10918 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

scientific and technical services, in 

companies and enterprises, in administrative and support and waste management and remediation services. 

We’re not just talking about some 

small boutique industry here. We’re 

talking about something that is vitally 

connected to the entire American economy. 

Now, we may have agreement about 

the management of the automotive industry, but there shouldn’t be any disagreement that the American workers 

make a good product when they are 

able to make their product. 

We have to have confidence in our 

Nation. We have to have confidence in 

our ability to make things. We, as a 

Congress, should take a proprietary interest in the fact that America can 

make cars and that we can make steel 

and planes and that we can build ships. 

This is what made our country great. 

We cannot maintain any credibility in 

the world community if we see our 

automotive industry collapse. And 

steel will not be far behind. 

Sixty-seven years ago, when this Nation was attacked, the ability to respond and defend America depended on 

the very industry which is facing this 

Congress today begging for help. But 

they’re not begging for help for themselves. Think of millions of Americans 

who are watching our deliberations 

asking, do we have any sense about 

what the impact of the failure of this 

legislation would mean? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 

the gentleman 30 seconds. 

Mr. KUCINICH. We are expected to be 

able to see into the future. People elect 

us to be able to hold in our hands their 

lives, their jobs, their economic freedom. We cannot fail them in this moment. We cannot let this industry go 

bankrupt. We cannot let America descend to a second-rate power. We must 

be strong. 

I will be introducing in the next Congress the National Industrial Manufacturing Act, which is going to say that 

steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping are deemed to be vital to our national defense. And we need a whole 

new direction. Let’s start today by 

showing we can move towards economic recovery by saving our automotive industry. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at 

this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 

(Mr. ROSKAM). 

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to 

applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 

KUCINICH) with his passion and his clarity really, but really want to urge a little bit of caution. And I think the reason for caution was on display today in 

the House Financial Services Committee on a different issue. We had 

some hearings on some oversight as it 

relates to the $700 billion bailout. And 

it was really, in my hearing, and during the time that I was there and 

watching on television also, it was 

really overwhelming to watch Members 

of Congress talking to members of the 

administration and almost talking past 

one another, you know, interpreting 

things differently, and I don’t think 

that’s what the legislation meant and 

so forth and so on. And so here we are 

$700 billion later, and administration 

and Capitol Hill talking past one another. And I think we’re on the verge 

of doing that same thing here if we’re 

not careful, because I represent a district, the western suburbs of Chicago, 

with a lot of auto supply manufacturers. But there’s no guarantee that that 

money that we’re contemplating tonight is going to get to the folks in my 

district. There’s no guarantee that the 

type of pressure that has been put on 

the auto manufacturers is going to 

come to fruition and actually come up 

with something good. 

What happened to the December 2 

deadline? What happened to the December 2 moratorium by which there 

was going to be a new declaration and 

a new plan? And it has now been postponed now to the end of the first quarter. 

So clearly, there is an urgency here 

to work. Clearly, there is an urgency to 

get something done. But heaven help 

us if we pass the same type of statute 

that was enacted with such urgency 

only 2 months ago. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I 

would reserve again. We have got an 

imbalance that we created. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, 

may I inquire how much time remains 

on both sides? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 17 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 111⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. HENSARLING. In that case, Mr. 

Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes 

to the distinguished ranking member 

of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 

BARTON). 

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and 

was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 

I rise in support of this legislation this 

evening. I think it’s important that 

members of the Republican Party in 

the House be for Main Street and the 

workers of America as much as sometimes we are for Wall Street and the 

financiers of America. 

I have the privilege to represent over 

2,500 GM assembly workers and managers at the GM assembly plant in Arlington, Texas. They produce the highest quality products, SUV, hybrids, 

pickups in the world. They export a 

fair number of the products that they 

manufacture, and they manufacture 

over 200,000 vehicles on an annual basis 

every year. 

It would be an absolute shame if we 

either force these companies into 

bankruptcy or watch them totally go 

out of business because they had the 

misfortune to be in a business cycle 

where gasoline was $4 a gallon and 

their product sale fell 40 percent on average in 1 year. 

If I lost 40 percent of my votes in this 

last election in 2008, I would not be 

coming back as a Member-elect of the 

next Congress. 

If we can give the AIGs and the Wells 

Fargos and the J.P. Morgans of the 

world, each of those individual companies, between 40 and $25 billion, in what 

amounts to some sort of a very unsecured loan, to be generous about it, 

certainly we can give the American 

nameplate automotive industry a $15 

billion bridge loan that has a 5 percent 

interest rate for, I believe, the first 5 

years and then a 9 percent interest rate 

after that; that has an automobile czar 

appointed by President Bush to oversee 

the industry, and force them to be accountable on any expenditure over $14 

million. 

I would ask for a ‘‘yes’’ vote on the 

bill. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 

1 minute to another long-time distinguished expert in the field, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. KILDEE). 

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, not many 

people were here back in 1979 when this 

House and the Congress passed the loan 

guarantee for Chrysler. I was a cosponsor of that bill, and we made over $300 

million on that loan. Before that vote, 

I was responsible for finding out how 

many congressional districts were affected by Chrysler. I spent hours on the 

phone looking at congressional district 

after congressional district. My research didn’t yield many, if any, congressional districts that were not affected by the viability of Chrysler Corporation. Steel, aluminum, glass, plastic and computer chips are obvious 

components in today’s cars. 

b 1900 

But it goes beyond that, Mr. Speaker. 

My Republican colleague at the time, 

Congressman Jim Broyhill of North 

Carolina, asked me one day, ‘‘Kildee, 

when are you people of Michigan getting back to work?’’ 

I said, ‘‘Jim, why do you ask?’’ 

He said, ‘‘Because my constituents in 

the carpet fiber manufacturing industry are suffering.’’ 

This goes beyond the automobile industry. It touches all of America. What 

America drives drives America. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at 

this time, I’m happy to yield 1 minute 

to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 

FLAKE). 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, nobody 

here in this institution wants to see 

the auto industry go belly up. Some of 

us simply believe that the best way to 

ensure the long-term viability of the 

auto industry is to allow them to go 

into bankruptcy where they can reorganize in a way that will make them 

viable in the long term. 

This legislation simply represents 

the fatal conceit, the notion that we in 

this institution can outguess the millions of decisions by independent actors in the marketplace. We simply 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10919 

can’t. We know that. Yet think about 

it. This legislation appoints a car czar. 

That sounds like the guy in East Germany in the 1970s who came up with 

the infamous Trabant, or Trabbie, 

which is the European version of the 

Edsel. How in the world can anybody in 

this institution or elsewhere in government outguess the marketplace? We 

simply can’t. 

Mr. Speaker, let’s allow this industry 

to go into bankruptcy and to reorganize in a way that they will be viable 

in the long term. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, 

may I inquire how much time remains 

on both sides. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 101⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at 

this time, I am happy to yield 11⁄2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, 

the gentleman from California (Mr. 

HUNTER). 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that in World War II and at 

Willow Run, Michigan, I believe, Ford 

Motor Company made a bomber every 

60 minutes for this country. Chrysler 

made tens of thousands of tanks. General Motors developed engines for practically every type of war machine that 

we utilized. 

I would ask my colleagues to look at 

the need for this vote, after we have 

the vote and in the ensuing months, to 

move into the real requirement that is 

before the American people, and that is 

this: Right now, we have a non-level 

playing field around the world. We 

agreed to a GAT agreement many 

years ago after World War II in which 

we agreed to allow other nations to 

subsidize their auto industries by rebating their taxes, their VAT taxes, 

and by charging that same tax to 

American cars coming into their countries. 

That means that a $10,000 car coming 

out of Japan receives a rebate from the 

Government of Japan to that car company for $1,500 if they’ll do one thing— 

sell the car in America. When the 

American car comes to Japan, it receives a tax of $1,500 at the border for 

the American car to be sold. That’s 

why, of the 132 trading nations moving 

beyond the auto industry, the United 

States has a deficit, a trade deficit, 

with practically every country in the 

world, including those with higher 

labor rates than the United States. So, 

as we apportion these jobs—this burden—for industry and for labor, there 

is also a job for government. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 

the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. 

Mr. HUNTER. That job for us is a job 

of leveling the playing field and of reforming our trade policies so that free 

trade moves in both directions. Right 

now, we have trade that is free in only 

one direction, and that is for products 

coming into the United States. 

I thank my colleagues, and I thank 

the gentleman. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, I will take 30 seconds to say 

that my friend from Arizona says how 

can we assume that one bureaucrat 

would know more than the marketplace. Well, it’s not harder to do that 

than to assume that one bankruptcy 

trustee would know more than the 

marketplace. Bankruptcy is a suspension of the marketplace. I am puzzled 

by this double standard here. Let’s 

leave it to the market by appointing a 

bankruptcy trustee—a total abnegation of the concept of the market—and 

the appointment of a lawyer who is less 

likely, it seems to me, to have the expertise than the whole Bush administration might be able to find in industrial matters. 

I yield 1 minute to the long-suffering 

and extremely patient gentleman from 

Missouri (Mr. CLAY). 

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

Mr. CLAY. Let me say that I stand in 

support of the bridge loans to the automobile companies. I speak today for 

workers. An overwhelming majority of 

my constituents in the First District 

support the bridge loans also. They, 

like me, do not want to see the Big 3 go 

bankrupt. This would not be good for 

our economy at this time in our history. 

If these companies are to go into 

bankruptcy, it would mean that hundreds of smaller companies and suppliers would go into bankruptcy or 

would be economically crippled. Millions of Americans have stock in these 

auto companies, and I need not lecture 

on the further risk to their investments that this would cause. The state 

of the economy has already done 

enough damage to their investments, 

to pension fund investments and to the 

investments of business and of organizations of all kinds. The auto companies and the unions have agreements 

that will bring them in line with Toyota’s by 2012. Cut labor costs and industry costs. 

I urge the passage of the bill. 

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the 

bridge loans to the automobile companies. I 

speak today for workers. An overwhelming 

majority of my constitutents in the 1st Congressional District of the State of Missouri, 

support the bridge loans also. They, like me, 

do not see bankruptcy of the ‘‘Big 3’’ as a 

positive for workers or the economy at this 

time in history. 

Mr. Speaker, if these companies are to go 

into bankruptcy, it would mean that hundreds 

of smaller companies, the suppliers, would go 

into bankruptcy or be economically crippled. 

Small businesses employ more workers in 

the United States than all other employers 

combined. The failing of the big three auto 

makers would put approximately 300,000 jobs 

at risk in the auto industry. The associated industries, that supply and contract with the auto 

makers, would then have in excess of 3 million workers at risk. 

If the auto makers are to go into bankruptcy, 

the warranties on your cars are at risk. This 

could result in families, already cash strapped, 

having to pay repairs out of pocket expenses 

that were not a part of their budgets and perhaps that requires shifting money from another 

necessity to pay for the repairs. 

Millions of Americans have stock in these 

auto companies. I need not lecture on the further risks to their investments this would 

cause. The state of the economy has already 

done enough damage to their investments, 

pension fund investments, and the investments of businesses and organizations of all 

kinds. 

The auto companies and the unions have 

agreements that will bring them in line with 

Toyotas’ by 2012. They continue to work together to cut labor costs and industry costs to 

insure the economic stability of the auto industry. 

I also understand that there are other credible arguments to the contrary, but I can’t 

agree that this is the time to consider them. 

Our economy is too fragile to risk this kind of 

hit at this time in the country’s economic history. 

We have used the tarp money to bail out 

banks and investment houses and to insure 

that select securities are properly backed. I 

voted against this approach in previous votes. 

I believe that we need to concentrate more on 

putting money in the hands of consumers 

through the creation of jobs and the maintaining of jobs that do exist. This legislation directly targets the workers. We do not need to 

have an economy with healthy institutions and 

securities and consumers with no money to 

purchase goods or invest. 

I am speaking to both parties on the floor. 

We won’t solve these economic problems confronting us working for separate results. And I 

do know that no Member of this floor wants to 

see this economy crash. I do understand that 

we have some differences of opinion in the 

methods that Government has to employ to inject life into the economy. We can work on 

them after the first of the year. Roll up your 

sleeves and come back in January ready to 

find the best solutions. 

Join me in supporting this package today. 

This is only a stopgap measure, but a necessary one. We cannot afford the risk of the 

alternatives. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at 

this time, I yield myself 3 minutes. 

No one in this Chamber wants to see 

the Big 3 automakers fail. No one. The 

loss of these automakers would be a 

tragic circumstance for our economy. 

There is no doubt. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

the question that I asked of the chairman of the Big 3 automakers, and that 

is: 

Name me three industries that are 

not hurting in this economy that could 

not be helped, sustained and made 

more profitable by the infusion of $15 

billion? 

Stone cold silence at the witness 

table. 

Mr. Speaker, everyone in every industry is hurting in this economy. Why 

the automakers? Why not the airlines? 

H10920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

Why not the home builders? Why not 

the restaurants and the hotels? They 

do not have a monopoly on economic 

misery. If our purpose here today is to 

preserve jobs, I’m wondering why the 

money is not destined for the small 

businesses of America. 

This year, a half a million small businesses that are employing an average 

of 10 workers will fail. Small business 

is the job engine of America, not just 

the small businesses that may be attached to the automakers in the industry but all small businesses. 

Jacksonville Industries in my district in Jacksonville, Texas. Kenneth 

Framing in Athens, Texas. Now, I suspect nobody in this Chamber has heard 

the names of those businesses, but 

we’ve all heard the names of the Big 3 

automakers, and we know that they’ve 

had the ability to spend $50 million to 

lobby this Congress this year. I don’t 

deny them their first amendment opportunities to petition the Congress for 

the redress of their grievances. 

But, Mr. Speaker, are they getting 

the money and small business isn’t getting the money merely because we 

have not heard the names of the small 

businesses and because they’re working 

hard to put food on their tables to sustain their families and because they 

don’t have $50 million to spend on lobbying expenses? 

I think there must be a better way. 

Indeed, it would be one thing if we 

knew for a fact that this money somehow would solve the problem, but we 

don’t. Independent analysts in the auto 

industry tell us, if demand does not 

pick up for the domestic auto industry, 

$15 billion, $35 billion, $75 billion, and 

$105 billion will not solve the problem. 

It will not solve the problem. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself an additional minute. 

Everybody agrees that the auto industry needs to reorganize, but the 

question that is before this body is: Is 

it going to reorganize at the risk of investors or is it going to reorganize at 

the risk of the poor, beleaguered taxpayer? Is it going to take voluntary 

capital from investors at risk or involuntary capital from taxpayers that is 

placed at risk? 

The taxpayer can take no more. We 

are seeing the largest nominal deficit 

in the history of our Nation. The unfunded obligations of the average 

American family are over $400,000. Bailout mania has had thousands of dollars 

of obligations to them. We want the 

Big 3 to survive, but they’ve got to get 

down their labor costs. They’ve got to 

convince the American consumer that 

their products are worthy of their investment. They must reorganize, but 

another bailout at the taxpayer expense is not the answer, particularly 

when small business does not enjoy the 

same benefit. 

This bill should be voted down. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 

1 minute to a member of the committee, to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions 

and Consumer Credit, the gentlewoman 

from New York (Mrs. MALONEY). 

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I 

thank the gentleman for yielding and 

for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the body tonight. 

I rise in strong support of the bridge 

loan of $15 billion to three of the largest manufacturers in America. 

In response to my good friend on the 

other side of the aisle, if you’re concerned about saving small businesses, 

there are literally thousands of small 

businesses that are associated with the 

auto industry in our country. 

I would like to put in the RECORD a 

report that my office and I worked on 

that shows the ripple effect of the loss 

of these jobs in America. Over 3 million 

jobs are either directly or indirectly 

associated with the auto industry—one 

in seven manufacturing jobs, many 

small businesses, the auto dealers, the 

suppliers. This is a major employer in 

America. 

Last month, we lost over 533,000 jobs. 

Unemployment is at 6.7 percent. If this 

industry fails, the unemployment rate 

will jump to, roughly, 8.3 percent. Our 

fragile economy is in a crisis. We can 

not afford to lose these jobs. Other 

countries support their auto industries. 

We should, too. 

THE RIPPLE EFFECT: WHY FAILURE OF THE BIG

3 IS NOT AN OPTION

THE AUTO INDUSTRY EMPLOYS ONE IN TEN

MANUFACTURING JOBS

The domestic vehicle manufacturing industry, including the numerous companies that 

manufacture parts and technologies to supply American automakers, represents over 10 

percent of the nation’s manufacturing employment. A major contraction or collapse of 

the domestic auto industry could have multiple adverse affects on the economy, especially by driving up unemployment. Serious 

jobs losses in the industry would also have 

negative spillover effects for the manufacturers that supply everything from tires to 

cutting edge advanced technology such as 

advanced batteries for hybrid vehicles. These 

spillover effects would harm future innovation in the United States broadly, not just in 

the auto sector. Finally, over 10 percent of 

U.S. exports are motor vehicles or parts, and 

an additional 39 percent of exports are from 

capital goods sectors such as industrial machinery that depend in part on supplying domestic automakers. For this reason, a major 

failure of U.S. automakers will have an immediate and severe negative effect on our 

trade deficit, and will make any future 

progress on improving our trade balance far 

more difficult. 

APPROXIMATELY 2 MILLION WORKERS BUILD OR

SELL VEHICLES MADE BY THE DETROIT THREE

Chart I shows a breakdown of the estimated employment that depends directly on 

the Detroit Three, based on data from the 

Department of Commerce. The production 

supply chain alone relies on almost 1.5 million workers, far more than the quarter million workers who are directly employed by 

the automakers. This is because most of the 

workers who produce a car work for outside 

suppliers who manufacture vehicle parts and 

components. In addition, vehicle parts suppliers must themselves draw on producers of 

other supplies and services, ranging from 

steel to machine tools. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that each job in auto assembly and 

parts production directly supports 2.4 additional jobs in the economy through its supply chain purchases. 

Once the car is produced, it is sold and 

serviced through auto dealerships that employ over a million workers, approximately 

half of which sell Detroit Three cars. In 

total, almost two million workers are directly employed in the production and sale 

of Detroit vehicles. Only 12 percent of these 

jobs are in the Detroit automakers themselves, but all of them could potentially be 

threatened by an automaker shutdown. 

MULTIPLE STUDIES ESTIMATE JOB LOSSES OF 2.5

MILLION OR MORE FROM A MAJOR AUTOMAKER

CONTRACTION

The two million workers connected to the 

Detroit Three indirectly support many other 

jobs. Job loss among auto workers would reduce spending in their communities, leading 

to further job losses in retail and other sectors. At a time of general recession, the job 

and consumer expenditure losses created by 

a major auto industry contraction will not 

be made up from other sources. 

The exact number of jobs supported by this 

spending is difficult to estimate. However, it 

is clear that numerous additional jobs would 

be at risk. Three separate studies—from 

Mark Zandi of the economic analysis firm 

Moody’s Economy.com, the Center for Automotive Research, and the Economic Policy 

Institute—have estimated that a major disruption to the auto industry would lead to 

job losses of at least 2.5 million and possibly 

as much as 3 million jobs. This implies that 

a major contraction or collapse of the domestic auto industry could singlehandedly 

drive the unemployment rate from its current level of 6.7 percent to 8.3 percent, even 

as job losses in other sectors continue. 

THE CURRENT FINANCIAL AUTOMAKER CRISIS IS

EXACERBATED BY THE CREDIT CRISIS

The magnitude of these losses were driven 

by the combination of a massive spike in 

crude oil and gasoline prices during 2006–07, 

followed by the credit crisis and recession 

that has begun over the past year. The credit 

crisis has led to a sharp cutoff in financing 

for auto loans, and the general impact of the 

recession has led to record drops in consumer 

spending. Chart 2 shows the combination of 

these two factors has devastated North 

American vehicle sales for all manufacturers. Total vehicle sales in November 2008 

were down 37 percent from one year ago. 

Once recovery has begun from the credit crisis and the recession, it is likely that automaker earnings and sales will begin to show 

a recovery as well. 

AMERICAN AUTOMAKERS HAVE ALREADY MADE

MAJOR PROGRESS ON NEEDED RESTRUCTURING

In 1990, MIT researchers estimated that 

Toyota and other Japanese ‘‘lean manufacturers’’ were twice as efficient as the U.S. 

‘‘Big Three’’, and could manufacture a car in 

one-half the time required by American 

firms. Today, the most recent data finds that 

U.S. manufacturers have ‘‘nearly erased the 

productivity deficit against their Japanesebased competitors.’’ General Motors has increased its productivity 15 consecutive years, 

and now requires 32.3 hours to manufacture a 

car, as opposed to 30.7 hours for industry 

leader Toyota—a productivity gap of only 

about 5 percent. Chrysler has now tied Toyota in productivity. 

GM and other Detroit manufacturers have 

also made major recent investments in improving fuel efficiency, to avoid a repeat of 

sales declines associated with rising gas 

prices. General Motor’s 2008 model line has 

more vehicles with 30 or more miles per gallon than any other manufacturer, and the 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10921 

company plans the introduction of 16 new 

hybrid vehicles by 2010. 

AUTO WORKER PAY AND BENEFITS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SLASHED TO COMPETITIVE LEVELS

A major reason for cost difference between 

Detroit and Japanese automakers is that 

U.S. firms must assume additional pension 

and retiree health costs not faced by foreign 

manufacturers. However, in 2005 and 2007 the 

United Auto Workers (UAW) made major 

concessions in pay and benefits. The new 

contract slashed starting salaries at auto 

plants by 50 percent, to about $14 per hour. 

Current UAW workers also sacrificed all 

wage increases from 2006 through the end of 

the contract in 2011. Most important of all, 

the new contract established a health care 

trust fund that cut retiree pension and 

health benefits significantly. For example, 

the new contract will cut GM’s total legacy 

pension and health benefits from $7 billion to 

approximately $1 billion beginning in 2010, 

and cuts Ford’s legacy-related costs from $16 

to $3 per current labor hour. 

The frequently cited figure that UAW 

autoworkers make over $70 per hour is inaccurate, and is based on representing the full 

fixed costs of retiree health and benefits as 

part of labor costs for the current, much 

smaller auto-maker workforce. In fact, the 

most highly paid UAW worker at a Detroit 

Three automaker, a skilled trades worker 

with seniority, earns about $33 per hour. The 

new labor agreement cuts full labor costs, including all current and legacy benefit costs, 

to $53 per hour for U.S. automakers, as compared to $49 per hour at non-unionized Honda 

and Toyota assembly plants. 

STANDARD BANKRUPTCY IS NOT A VIABLE

SOLUTION FOR TROUBLED AUTOMAKERS

Companies in bankruptcy restructuring 

are dependent on external financing to continue operation. In the current credit crisis, 

it is highly unlikely that private sector external financing will be forthcoming for GM 

or other auto-makers that enter bankruptcy. 

Without private sector financing, a standard 

Chapter 11 process could quickly result in a 

movement to Chapter 7 liquidation, potentially resulting in the large-scale job losses 

outlined above. 

It is also important to note that the bankruptcy process is designed to pay off creditors, not to protect the public interest. During the bankruptcy process, firm management would be unable to undertake major 

new initiatives to improve technology, fuel 

efficiency, or productivity, since their attention would be engaged by legal conflicts over 

finances. Finally, consumers are unlikely to 

purchase automobiles from a bankrupt manufacturer, due to concerns over warranties 

and service. 

A CONDITIONAL BRIDGE LOAN FROM THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE RIGHT STEP

The American auto industry is under tremendous financial pressure from a unique set 

of economic circumstances. If one or more 

auto manufacturers go out of business at 

this time, then the total costs to society will 

be far greater than the loan that has been requested from government. The study by the 

Center for Automotive Research found that a 

50 percent contraction in Detroit automaker 

employment would cause government to lose 

$50 billion in the first year and $108 billion 

over three years due to combined declines in 

tax receipts and increases in transfer payments. 

Bridge financing would be crucial in helping these companies past the current credit 

and economic crisis, until recent improvements in productivity and fuel efficiency pay 

off. Any bridge financing should be accompanied by strict oversight and conditions for 

investment in continued progress in improving efficiency, as well as further stakeholder 

concessions. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, 

may I again inquire as to how much 

time is remaining on both sides, please. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 81⁄2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 71⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, we 

are prepared to close. I would like to 

inquire of the distinguished chairman 

of the Financial Services Committee: I 

don’t know if the gentleman has other 

speakers. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I 

am personally prepared to close. I 

would not be allowed to, so I have several more speakers. 

Mr. HENSARLING. In that case, Mr. 

Speaker, I would like to reserve the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I now 

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 

Michigan, who has been, as I can personally testify, the most ardent advocate in responding to this automobile 

crisis, Mr. LEVIN. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you very much, 

Mr. FRANK, for your being a pillar of 

commitment and of intelligence. 

I want to ask a question, but before I 

do that, I just want to say: We hear 

from the minority that they don’t want 

the domestic industry to collapse, but 

then they give all of the reasons why 

they’ll do nothing to help it from collapsing. They talk about the power, as 

Mr. FRANK has said, of someone appointed by the President, and give it to 

a trustee who is accountable to no one. 

Well, a person appointed by the President is accountable to the President of 

the United States. 

To Mr. FRANK, our distinguished 

chairman: Is the savings clause in the 

subordination provision of the legislation intended to apply to unfunded 

committed credit facilities of an automobile manufacturer in effect on December 2, 2008? 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the 

gentleman would yield, the answer is, 

yes, that clause does apply. We would 

want an automobile manufacturer to 

be able to use any of its existing unfunded credit facilities as a source of 

liquidity. So we clearly intend for the 

savings clause in the subordination 

provision of the legislation to cover unfunded committed credit facilities in 

effect as of December 2. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let 

me inquire of the gentleman: Does he 

have only one speaker remaining? 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, we 

have one speaker remaining, so we 

would reserve at this time. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Then I 

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 

Maryland, the majority leader. 

Mr. HOYER. In this time of economic 

crisis—as America is challenged, as 

economists tell us that we are facing 

the worst recession since the Great Depression—I want to say to BARNEY

FRANK, the chairman of the Financial 

Services Committee, that nobody has 

worked harder over the last 12 months 

with Secretary Paulson, Ben Bernanke, 

CHRIS DODD, SPENCER BACHUS, and with 

others in the Senate and in the House 

to try to address this issue in a responsible, effective way. 

b 1915 

There is nobody in this body, Republican or Democrat, who wants to see 

this economy go down further. There is 

nobody in this body, Republican or 

Democrat, who wants to see people losing jobs. There is nobody in this body 

who wants to see the 401(k) plans of our 

senior citizens who are relying on 

those plans for their retirement to 

have it eroded by further reduction in 

its value. 

Lyndon Johnson once said, ‘‘It’s not 

difficult to do the right thing. It’s difficult to know what the right thing is.’’ 

And that is, of course, what this debate 

is about, what is the right thing. 

I think it would be a fair statement 

that there will be really nobody who 

votes on this bill who will say this is 

absolutely right or this is absolutely 

wrong. There will be many of us who 

will vote, however, in a belief that this 

is a further effort to try to staunch the 

extraordinarily rapid fall that this 

economy has seen over the last 12 

months. 

This bill is designed to give the automakers the time and space they need 

to become a competitive job-creating 

industry once again. Why? Because we 

need them. We need their industrial capacity; we need them, frankly, psychologically; and we need them in terms of 

the employment they give, the profits 

they make, and the quality of product 

they provide. 

It is designed, this bill, to do so while 

protecting taxpayer dollars. Does it do 

so absolutely? No, it does not. But it 

has made very substantial efforts to 

put us in the best position possible. 

Reconciling the goals of saving these 

companies for the welfare of our country and protecting our taxpayers has 

taken long negotiations and compromise on both sides, but I’m convinced we’ve come to a sound solution. 

These rescue loans are necessary— 

not to reward bad decision making in 

Detroit, but to protect 3 million American jobs, 3 million livelihoods, 3 million families who depend on the automakers; not only their direct employees, but the workers, their suppliers, 

the small businesses—as the gentleman 

from Texas referenced—that serve 

those workers and entire communities. 

Are we really willing to put those 

workers at risk in this deep recession? 

533,000 jobs lost this year last month, 

533,000 last month. Let me give you a 

comparison. During the last year of the 

last administration in 2000, we gained 

over 11⁄2 million jobs. This year, we’ve 

lost over 11⁄2 million jobs. That’s a 3 

million job turnaround in the two 8- 

year interfacing periods. 

That’s why people in America are 

hurting. We cannot take the risk of 

H10922 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

having a million-month lost jobs. 

We’re not willing to put those workers 

at risk in this deep recession. 

As John Judis put it recently in the 

New Republic, without public loans, 

‘‘the industry will disappear the way 

the American television manufacturing 

industry disappeared. American workers and engineers will lose their ability 

to compete in a major durable goods 

industry.’’ We cannot afford to have 

that happen. 

The gentleman from Texas said that 

we don’t want that to happen. The gentleman from Massachusetts says we 

don’t want that to happen. We are trying to figure out how we ensure the objective that both of those gentlemen 

believe is appropriate. 

That is the motive behind the $15 billion in emergency bridge loans for the 

car companies. But it is equally important to ensure that those loans lead to 

real reform to ensure that we do not 

find ourselves right back in this same 

emergency in just a few months’ time. 

All 435 agree that that is not an objective or a result we want to see. 

Congress has insisted that the automakers develop detailed plans for longterm viability. I’m pleased that we 

were able to work with the administration. It has been criticized, but the administration and the President, others 

in the administration with whom I 

have talked, believe that making sure 

that this industry has the ability to 

continue is critical to the welfare of 

this Nation—not just to this industry 

but of this Nation. 

The viability plans that we are requiring were presented to Congress on 

December 2, and we’ve examined them 

in detail. Now, this bill will hold the 

automakers to their promises. They 

will be accountable to Congress and the 

administration as well as an administration-appointed ‘‘car czar’’ who will 

oversee the efforts of the industry and 

its stakeholders to cut costs, restructure debt, and renegotiate labor contracts. They will not be running the 

car companies, as they should not be, 

but they will be overseeing and ensuring that the car companies carry out 

the promises that they have made to us 

and to the taxpayers. 

Just like any other lender, the Federal Government is insisting that the 

recipients of its loans be on a plausible 

path to profitability. If the automakers 

stick to their plans for viability, more 

assistance, of course, may be possible. 

But if the administration-appointed official finds that they have not made 

adequate progress on restructuring by 

March 31, the loans will be called, and 

the automakers will be a step closer to 

bankruptcy. 

The automakers and most of the people with whom I’ve talked, liberal 

economists, conservative economists, 

Republicans and Democrats, believe 

that bankruptcy is not the option. 

There are some who believe that’s the 

option, but most I have talked to do 

not. 

This bill, of course, also includes 

safeguards for the taxpayers, as I said. 

It lets the American people profit if 

and when the value of the car companies recovers, as surely all of us hope it 

will. And it guarantees that taxpayer 

money will not fund lavish executive 

bonuses or golden parachutes. 

Mr. Speaker, if we act today, we can 

seize the chance for an American auto 

industry that is leaner, greener, and 

once more competitive. 

But ladies and gentlemen of this 

House, if we do nothing, we face the 

risk that sometime soon there will be 

no American auto industry. That will 

not be good for our national security, 

it will not be good for our economic security, it will not be good for the psychology of our country. 

So Mr. Speaker, I urge us, as I urged 

before when we acted to try to free up 

credit to prop up the financial industries—so critical to the success of 

every industry, of every consumer, of 

every household—to act not as Democrats, not as Republicans. I believe this 

will be a bipartisan bill. There will be 

Republicans who vote for this bill and 

Democrats who will vote for this bill. 

The administration has worked hard 

with us. We’ve worked hard with them 

to come to agreement. There may be 

some items that are still not in agreement. But the overwhelming objective 

of this bill and the result of this bill is 

agreed to between the administration 

and ourselves. 

This bill has the power to protect innumerable American jobs, and its 

strong safeguards will ensure that we 

are authorizing anything but a bridge 

loan to nowhere. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of this 

legislation, and in closing, again thank 

BARNEY FRANK, SPENCER BACHUS, and 

all of the others in the House on both 

sides, proponents and opponents, who 

have worked on this bill conscientiously to try to respond to a crisis 

that confronts our country and that 

the American public is asking us to 

help them solve to make their lives 

better, to bring our country back. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 

PERLMUTTER). 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

And to my friends, Mr. HENSARLING

and Dr. PRICE from the Financial Services Committee, you raise some legitimate points. But I think three questions have to be asked, and if they’re 

answered in the affirmative, then I 

think we must go forward and pass this 

bill. 

First, do you believe that the domestic auto industry is essential to America, whether it’s for jobs or national security? I think the answer is ‘‘yes.’’ 

But that doesn’t answer the whole 

question. 

The second two questions are, are 

you throwing good money after bad, or 

can you restructure these companies so 

that they can be competitive and succeed going forward? I think the answer 

is ‘‘yes.’’ We’ve received reorganization/restructuring plans from them 

that show really an ability to compete 

and to bring technology that leapfrogs 

Japanese technologies and other technologies into the future for our companies. So we can restructure these companies. 

And the third, can we protect the advances, the loans, that are made by the 

United States to these companies for 

the next hundred days? And the answer 

is ‘‘yes.’’ And in fact, we’ve gone about 

as far as we can go within the bounds 

of the Constitution and say that such 

loans shall be senior and prior to all 

obligations, liabilities, and debts of the 

automobile manufacturers, and we will 

take all available security and collateral. 

So we’ve done those three things. Is 

it essential? Yes. Can they be restructured? Yes. Have we secured the taxpayer? Yes. 

So we are making a loan for 100 days 

until a reorganization plan is approved 

by the President’s designee. If in fact 

during that time there is no reorganization plan or one that is not viable, 

that designee can call the loan. 

So this is a step for 100 days to protect an industry that is essential to 

this country. I’ve thought about this a 

lot. We have done what we can to limit 

executive pay, to stop dividends or distributions during the period of the 

loans. 

So we are taking steps to protect 

taxpayers for an industry that is essential to this country, and we will see 

over the next 100 days whether they 

can be restructured. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, I will now speak, and I will 

have one speaker after that. So when 

I’m through, it will be the turn of the 

gentleman from Texas to do his closing 

because I’m retaining one speaker after 

myself. 

I yield myself 11⁄2 minutes. 

Here is the dichotomy: Bankruptcy 

versus a piece of legislation which says 

to the administration—the incoming 

and outgoing—you do what you hope to 

accomplish in bankruptcy but with 

more flexibility, with a greater pool of 

people to call on. 

We’ve heard mocked the notion that 

either this administration or the next 

would have within its ranks expertise 

in economics and industrial organization, and we’re told, ‘‘No, no. That 

doesn’t work. Find a bankruptcy trustee.’’ I think they get the worst part of 

that argument if they listen to it. 

Beyond that, we have consumer marketing issues. The three companies are 

convinced—and almost every expert I 

talked to agrees with them—if they declare formal bankruptcy, their ability 

to sell cars is damaged. People buying 

cars want to know they will have a 

continuing relationship with an entity 

that will service the cars and make 

parts for the cars. 

So this continuing longer term relationship makes bankruptcy far more of 

a problem for them than for an airline 

where your contingency was just to 

buy one seat and nothing further. 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10923 

But again, the greatest illogic is to 

argue that somehow in the bankruptcy 

courts with a bankruptcy trustee, we 

were going to tie it to the lawyers. You 

get a far greater degree of expertise 

than either one of the two Presidential 

administrations could find within its 

ranks of economists and engineers and 

others. Therefore, we believe that our 

solution is the preferred one. 

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, it is my 

pleasure to yield the balance of our 

time to the distinguished gentleman 

from Michigan (Mr. MCCOTTER). 

b 1930 

Mr. MCCOTTER. I come from Michigan. I was born in Detroit. Wherever 

you go in the world, people know two 

things about Detroit. They know we 

make cars and they know we make 

music, Motown. And so when we find 

ourselves in difficult situations, it is 

not unusual for us to refer to music to 

help keep our lucidity and our balance 

to come through the tough times. 

As I listen to the debate on the auto 

industry, in many ways I’m reminded 

of Bob Seger’s song where he says: To 

the IRS I’m another file. I’m just a statistic on a sheet. I feel like a number. 

I’m not a number. I’m a man. 

We’ve heard a lot of talk about the 

policy undergirding this bill. There are 

good arguments on both sides, but I 

live with the people who will be affected by it. There have been those who 

have said bankruptcy is an option. 

Many people have said bankruptcy is a 

preferred option. I suppose bankruptcy 

is an option for those who it is not an 

option for. Why? Because those who 

like bankruptcy should first impose 

bankruptcy upon themselves and to see 

how their family feels when their future has been foreclosed, when they 

have no job, when they have no hope, 

when they believe that they have been 

forgotten because they are a number. 

We can talk about the small businesses. We have small businesses in 

Michigan, and they rely on manufacturing jobs in the auto industry to stay 

in business, because the ripple effect is 

not a ripple effect. It is a tsunami effect. For one manufacturing job, you 

will lose 7 to 10 others, and we in 

Michigan have felt this pain. Oh, we 

have felt this pain, and we have seen 

the cost of the restructuring that so 

many here seem oblivious to. 

But again, we’re numbers, I guess, in 

Michigan. We’re statistics. We’re involved in systems. We’ve been devoid of 

souls evidently at least by the opinionmakers and looters that have now 

watched the restructuring that so 

many of us on both sides of the aisle 

have watched for years. 

But we’re from Michigan. We did not 

complain. We kept our nose to the 

grindstone. We gritted our teeth. We 

suffered and endured. We endured as 

businesses closed, as white collar and 

blue collar jobs were lost. We endured 

as retirees worried about what would 

happen to their hard-earned lifetime of 

benefits, those legacy costs so many 

are so willing to shave, our senior citizens’ lifetimes of hard work. They 

played by the rules, which bankruptcy 

would change. 

We’ve heard a lot about the quality 

gap. We have heard a lot about the 

cost. I guess we should make less to be 

like everybody else. It’s not a very attractive option for real people, but if 

you’re a number, if you’re a statistic 

on a sheet, this makes perfect sense. 

It’s very logical. It’s very logical unless you start to worry about the person behind the statistic, the person 

who will get to look amongst their 

Christmas cards for a layoff notice, the 

ones who have already had an anxious 

Thanksgiving as we performed our due 

diligence upon the executives and 

President Gettelfinger of the UAW and 

had them come in and testify. 

We asked them how they got here. 

We asked them why they were in a restructuring now, again, as if the last 

several years had never happened. And 

I think they were productive meetings 

in the end. It brought us here to a bill 

that we believe can protect taxpayers 

and can help an industry that has been 

restructuring continue to survive. 

And if a bridge loan is passed, will we 

be happy in Detroit? Will we be happy 

in manufacturing throughout America? 

No. And it’s not because it’s not the 

money we wanted. It’s because we 

know a painful restructuring will continue if this bridge loan is approved. 

You see, to me, this is not abstract. 

My son Neal, my oldest son, turned 14, 

he looked at me and said, hey, Dad, I 

know what I want to be when I grow 

up. I said, well, as long as it is not a 

Congressman, I’m okay with that, 

whatever it is. And he looked at me, 

and he said I want to be an automotive 

engineer. And because of the restructuring in the auto industry, because of 

the pain that we’ve had and because of 

the reality that our children leave us 

for better climates economically and 

otherwise, I didn’t have the heart to 

tell my son that the likelihood of him 

achieving his dream of being an automotive engineer would be foreclosed to 

him. 

And there are so many other children 

that grow up loving cars, who want to 

have that experience, and it’s not just 

the children. It is the parents, the parents who work in the industry, white 

collar, blue collar, and my Republican 

friends, it is not just the white collar 

we must worry about. 

I have a very interesting experience 

when I talk to people on my side of the 

aisle about UAW and their concessions. 

Give credit where credit is due. 

They’ve been a partner with the big 

three in making painful concessions. I 

hope one thing yet will suffice. 

I once spent a freezing winter morning in front of the glass house at the 

Ford Company corporate headquarters 

in Dearborn. All those employees, 

those UAW members that people say 

don’t want to work, come to work and 

don’t want to perform, don’t care about 

their quality of performance, I will tell 

you what. They stood out in 0-degree 

temperatures to keep the Wixom plant 

in my district open. That’s how badly 

they wanted to work. That’s how much 

they cared about the production of 

those cars. That’s how much they loved 

their families. 

For those who think we’ve not been 

restructuring, the Wixom plant was 

closed as part of a Ford Motor Company restructuring. How many more 

people that want to work will be precluded because we did not give them 

the opportunity? 

We hear that the auto industry has 

brought it on itself. Well, that’s what 

Washington does. Washington makes 

bad decisions and blames the victim. 

And we’re not going through the painful litany of how Washington has not 

been as helpful as it could be, but let us 

suffice to say that throughout the entire restructuring process that we have 

endured and know will continue, we did 

not come here with our hand out, did 

we? 

We did not ask the Federal Government to take over all the health care of 

the employees. We did not ask the Federal Government to keep the Wixom 

plant open. We did not ask the Federal 

Government to do anything but leave 

us alone while we continued our painful restructuring and gritted our teeth 

and kept our nose to the grindstone. 

And now, circumstances outside of 

our control have led us to the point 

where we have to be here or there will 

be no domestic auto industry in the 

United States, and there will be no 

manufacturing base in the United 

States, and this at a time when it has 

been pointed out the taxpayers that 

work in the auto industry are watching 

the people at AIG talk about $4 million 

per person bonuses after they have 

been bailed out to the tune of roughly 

$40 billion in this last round of their 

dollars. But then again, when you’re a 

statistic, when you’re a number, those 

things don’t really matter for the people who have to make the decisions. 

We come here to make decisions as 

best we can in public policy, but the 

overriding goal is to serve the people 

that those policies affect, and in my 

mind, the failure of sound policies here 

at least gives us the chance to give 

these people to survive, to keep a manufacturing sector in place in the United 

States, and to let these working families continue to endure and grit their 

teeth and keep their nose to the grindstone and work and hope for the best. 

Because if we do not, we will be confirming that they are statistics, they 

are numbers, that they are worthy of 

bankruptcy because that’s what makes 

economic sense, if not moral and societal sense. 

And to close, I remember very well 

coming home after the Thanksgiving 

break after we had the auto industry 

in, and I was driving past the Jefferson 

plant. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York. Mr. 

Speaker, for the remainder of the time, 

H10924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

I am honored to announce that Speaker PELOSI will close. 

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady 

for yielding. 

I rise in support of this important 

legislation and commend Chairman 

FRANK for his persistence in bringing a 

very focused, disciplined bill to the 

floor and thank Mr. BACHUS for his 

leadership as well. 

As Speaker of the House, I am 

pleased to rise to quote another Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, a legend 

in our country, certainly in this Congress. He served here with great distinction, as many of us know from the 

history books and some of us saw as 

students, and he said the following. He 

said: When I was a child, I lived way 

out in the country. I’d sit on the fence 

on Sundays and wish to God that somebody would ride by on a horse or drive 

by on a buggy, just anything to relieve 

my loneliness. Loneliness, he said, consumes people. That’s why I’m so glad 

to see that today farmers have cars. 

And he goes on to say what that 

progress meant in the life of developing 

a sense of community. 

Since the days when the Model Ts 

first rolled off Henry Ford’s assembly 

line owning a car has been part of the 

American dream. I know when I was 

young and when the new models would 

come out it was a very festive occasion. It has been for a long time. I just 

haven’t kept up with all the cars. But 

today, the American automotive industry is imperiled due not only to recession and a credit freeze, but because it 

has been on the wrong track for longterm competitiveness and job creation. 

Today, we are considering legislation 

not as life support to sustain a dying 

industry but a jump start for an industry that is essential to our country’s 

economies, economic health. One in 10 

American jobs is linked to the domestic auto industry, and it is a key pillar 

in an American sector critical to our 

national security and economic competitiveness for decades to come. 

This legislation is about offering Detroit, and America, a chance to get 

back on track. This legislation is important. It is built on four principles, 

and actually it comes down to a question of tough love, tough love for an industry whose success is essential to our 

economic success, whose jobs are important to our workforce, whose innovation is essential to our progress, and 

whose manufacturing and technological and industrial base is also essential to our national security. 

There are four principles in the bill. 

First, when we ask taxpayers to put up 

money to fund this restructuring, we 

must have accountability to the American people. The President will designate a car czar to oversee the industry’s restructuring. The taxpayers get 

a return on their investment or are 

first in line to be repaid. I thank Mr. 

FRANK for insisting on that provision. 

No golden parachutes, bonuses, or corporate jets for executives. And the 

Government Accountability Office and 

the TARP, that’s the Troubled Assets 

Relief Program, Inspector General will 

provide independent oversight to protect our investment. Accountability 

for the taxpayer. 

Second, there must be shared sacrifice. Everybody, every party to the 

auto sector must be present at the 

table. Mr. MCCOTTER rightfully referenced the United Auto Workers making concessions, but they shouldn’t be 

the only ones making concessions. I’ve 

called it a barbershop: When one person 

gets a haircut, everyone must get a 

haircut. That means those who are 

shareholders, those who are bondholders must have a cramdown on what 

return they get on the dollar. Suppliers 

have to understand the realities of 

what the market is for these cars. 

Dealers have to be treated with the respect that all of these elements deserve 

but with the reality of what the real 

marketplace is and what the market 

for the cars are. The auto workers have 

made concessions already. Perhaps 

they must be expedited, perhaps they 

must do more, but everything must be 

a shared sacrifice, and if one element is 

going to make the sacrifice, they 

shouldn’t be asked to do so unless everyone shares in that. And the executive suite, the management of the companies, they must be part of that sacrifice as well, and I referenced that in 

the accountability section. 

Third, the auto makers must restructure or repay. The companies must restructure to achieve viability, international competitiveness, and they 

must do this with fuel efficiency and 

reduced emissions. 

And this is important for our colleagues who do not support this bill because we share many views. This has to 

be a tough standard because otherwise 

we’re just putting out money for more 

of the same, but that is not what this 

legislation is about nor should it be. If 

they do not, the car czar can require 

immediate repayment of a loan if the 

company has not made adequate 

progress by February 15 to develop a 

long-term restructuring plan. The company will get no more Federal assistance if it fails to submit an acceptable 

final restructuring plan by March 31. 

The list again, accountability, shared 

sacrifice, restructuring, and fourth and 

finally, there must be a commitment 

to innovation and efficiency. 

b 1945 

Green is gold. Green is gold. Making 

a commitment to innovation and fuel 

economy and better emission standards 

makes the automotive industry in our 

country more competitive. People will 

want to buy their cars. 

The legislation calls for maintaining 

a half billion dollars of the innovation 

funding set aside to help the industry 

retool to build advanced technology vehicles that greatly improve efficiency 

and reduce carbon emissions, and replenishing the remainder of the innovation funds in a matter of weeks. 

Now, let me just say this. I have objected strenuously to using the green 

funds, the so-called 136 funds, because 

their purpose in our energy bill last 

year was very specific. It was for advanced, innovative manufacturing 

technology. In other words, it was for 

the retooling and making sure that 

companies had funds for them to research, develop, and benefit from that 

funding. The administration insisted 

that money be used instead for this restructuring period of time. I reluctantly agreed only with the idea that 

the money would be replenished, because without their advanced manufacturing technology, we are not going to 

have the progress necessary to compete 

internationally and domestically, for 

that matter. And most of that is about 

the environment. It’s about the greening of the automotive industry. 

I know the automotive industry can 

do it. Do you know, my colleagues, 

that in Europe this year the car that 

took first place in the ratings there 

was a GM Opel, a GM Opel, a General 

Motors Opel? Second place went to 

Ford Fiesta. Over 100 points behind 

them was Volkswagen. So these are 

General Motors- and Ford-made cars. 

Ranking just 1 point behind was Ford, 

100 points or more behind was Volkswagen. These are American companymade cars in Europe that they have 

not chosen to sell in America. 

Something is wrong with this picture. We know that in Latin America 

the flex-fuel cars for years have been 

sold. They were American-made cars, 

made by American manufacturers. Millions of them. But the industry chose 

not to advance them here because they 

made more money off of SUVs and the 

executive compensation and bonuses 

were tied to SUVs. Something is very 

wrong with this picture. 

So what we are saying here is let everybody come to the table. Everybody 

get a haircut. Everybody has got to get 

a trim, maybe a big trim. Only then 

can we restructure this so that we have 

a competitive industry looking to the 

future, as Sam Rayburn looked to the 

future when he was so excited about 

seeing cars for the first time, bringing 

the American people together, American cars that have always been part of 

the American Dream. 

So I’m optimistic because I see us 

with two choices: One is the automotive industry is on the brink, and 

some are advocating bankruptcy. Some 

of the people advocating bankruptcy 

will make money off that bankruptcy. 

But that takes us down to a deep pit 

that over a long period of time is detrimental to our economy, harmful to our 

workers, and certainly does not make 

us more competitive internationally. 

Instead we have listened to what the 

companies have had to say. We said 

you’re not going to see any money 

until we see the plan. We’ve seen the 

plan. It was better than what we saw 

before. Much more needs to be done. 

This affords a period of time with half 

of what they asked for. But we want to 

see performance, we want to see milestones by certain dates that they are 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10925 

making this progress. And we want to 

see a change in mentality in the executive suite in Detroit. 

What a great community, what a 

great State, Detroit and Michigan. 

They have been part, again, of the 

manufacturing part of the American 

Dream. We want to throw a lifeline for 

success. We do not intend to afford life 

support so that we just have to revisit 

this issue again at the same status quo. 

So if you’re upset with how the Big 

Three executives have operated, if 

you’re upset about the fact that we are 

not competitive internationally, if 

you’re upset that the taxpayer dollar 

has to be used to be committed to this, 

you should be very pleased with what 

this legislation does because it captures your frustration with it all. It 

sets us on a new path to viability, and 

it is a test, and we will soon see in a 

matter of weeks if the executive suites 

in Detroit are willing to make the 

choices. Certainly there needs to be retooling of the plants. Certainly there 

has to be renegotiating of the contracts. There may have to be reconsideration of the management of these 

companies if they cannot live up to the 

standard of this legislation and prove 

themselves worthy of the taxpayers’ 

dollar that is being placed there. 

So I think that on both sides of this 

issue we have a great deal of common 

ground. I just happen to come down on 

the side of giving a chance, this one 

more chance, to this great industry, 

optimistic by March 31 that we will all 

celebrate the new path that we are 

going down, but certainly ready, certainly ready to admit if that does not 

happen because unless it is absolutely 

clear in the minds of the people that 

we are talking about, the executives, 

the shareholders, the bondholders, the 

suppliers, the dealers, all of whom I respect, and the workers, who are a very 

high priority for us, unless it is clear 

to them that concessions and serious 

concessions must be made or else the 

alternative is almost unthinkable, they 

will not make the necessary concessions in some cases. 

I salute the United Auto Workers for 

stepping up to the plate, for being the 

model, for leading the way to say we 

respect this industry, we want to advance it, and we are willing to take the 

lead in making those concessions. 

So this is an important day in the 

life of America when the Congress 

speaking for the people, who are rightfully unhappy about all of this money 

going to companies that are supposed 

to be in the free market and be competitive, but nonetheless understanding what is at risk for all of us. 

As keepers of the taxpayers’ trust here, 

if bankruptcy were to occur, the additional cost in unemployment insurance 

and food stamps and the safety net and 

the revenue foregone in our tax situation, locally, State, and nationally, 

would exact much more of a toll than 

the amount of money that we would be 

putting forth here. 

So again I salute Mr. FRANK for his 

leadership. 

And may I say that at the end of the 

day yesterday, the legislation that you 

have before us is the legislation that 

we conceded on several points to agree 

to the White House language. This is 

bipartisan in its nature, and it is the 

legislation that we said we would go 

forward with in a bipartisan way that 

the President would sign. Others have 

made other changes, adjustments, 

whatever it is. They say on the Senate 

side they need this and that. But we 

operate in good faith. We agree to concessions. And we would hope that the 

White House would keep its word that 

it gave us last night about this legislation and encourage the Senate to follow suit and the President can sign the 

bill so the message will be clear to the 

markets and to the American people, 

to the workers and to all concerned 

with this great industry that we want 

to share in that sacrifice as well and 

we stand willing to do it by voting 

‘‘yes’’ on this important legislation. 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, with all of the rhetoric about today’s loan 

package, it is easy to lose track of the decision we have to make. We can, as some have 

suggested, decide to let two of America’s largest businesses go bankrupt in the coming 

months. If that happens, more than 2 million 

workers will likely lose their jobs. Communities 

across this country will be devastated. According to estimates, New Mexico alone stands to 

lose roughly 10,000 jobs. New Mexicans who 

ask nothing more than to work hard and provide for their families will be forced to put their 

dreams on hold. 

Or, we can pass this bill. 

Nobody disagrees that the auto industry has 

made mistakes. Car company CEOs have 

been reckless and short-sighted. While Japanese companies were rushing to produce hybrids, American companies were suing states 

like New Mexico to stop energy efficiency 

standards. While other companies were investing in the cars of the future, Big Three executives were trying desperately to turn back 

the clock. They refused to anticipate rising energy prices. Today, their irresponsibility threatens their companies, their employees and millions of American workers. 

But we should not punish 3.3 million American workers and their families for the errors of 

a few executives. Yes, car company CEOs 

have been reckless and short-sighted. But that 

ends today. If this proposal passes, American 

car companies will trade in their Hummers for 

hybrids. And in the process, they will build an 

industry ready to compete in the 21st Century. 

But all these changes will not be possible unless we act now. 

Unlike TARP, which I opposed, this plan 

tells executives that if they do not change, 

they will not survive. If the auto industry does 

not have an acceptable viability plan in three 

and a half months, they will not see another 

dime of taxpayer money. Whatever money 

they have received will have to be repaid immediately. 

Today’s vote does not spend one additional 

taxpayer dollar. We have already approved 

$25 billion to help the American auto industry 

build energy efficient cars. I supported that because it was necessary to force Detroit to 

modernize. Today’s legislation simply provides 

some of that money right now to make sure 

that there is an American auto industry to 

modernize. More importantly, this bill provides 

increased oversight to ensure that taxpayer 

dollars help American workers and drivers, not 

stockholders or executives. It mandates that 

our money will not be spent on executive salaries, dividends or corporate jets. It institutes 

unprecedented controls to protect the people’s 

money from misuse. Most importantly, it ensures that Detroit can no longer continue with 

business as usual. 

Madam Speaker, we face great economic 

challenges, some of the most difficult in decades. Job reports last week showed half a million jobs lost in November alone. This is not 

a perfect bill; it is just the best we could get 

from this president. But given the current climate, we cannot afford to risk another 3 million jobs by refusing to act. That is why today 

I will be voting yes. 

Thank you, Madam Speaker. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted to 

support H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, having determined 

that it was the best compromise given the current circumstances. I supported the restructuring because it meets the standards that I 

used in voting on previous bailout proposals. 

First, this is a relatively small sum compared 

to the trillions that have been devoted to stabilizing the financial industry. Second, the taxpayer is protected by the smaller sums and 

stricter controls employed in these loans. Finally, unlike the financial services industry, this 

legislation offers a lifeline to people making a 

real product. 

Unfortunately, that real product is not of the 

nature and quality that Americans need and 

demand. The auto industry leadership is ultimately responsible for their failure. New management should be put into place, along with 

a new direction. It is paramount that Congress 

takes this opportunity to move the domestic 

auto industry towards greater environmental 

sustainability. Providing resources and direction to the automakers to accelerate the development of fuel efficient vehicles and other environmental technologies will improve the position of those companies to meet future market 

demands. 

There is no doubt that a serious change in 

direction and downsizing is necessary. There 

will be significant management and labor concessions. This proposal will allow the United 

States to see the automakers’ survival is possible. If the industry cannot follow through on 

their promises to rebuild and restructure, it is 

very unlikely that I will be supportive of subsequent efforts. This is their chance to demonstrate that they can and will make significant changes in a new and better direction. 

Finally, I am pleased that the legislation includes a provision that protects transit agencies from the consequences of the collapse of 

insurer American International Group Inc. 

(AIG), which guaranteed many lease agreements that transit agencies entered into to pay 

for buses, trains and other equipment in the 

1990s. During a year of record ridership, our 

transit agencies need these resources. For example, the transit provider in my district, TriMet, is reporting a 5.47 percent year to date 

growth in ridership—a substantial figure for 

such a mature transit agency. Without this 

provision, Tri-Met could face the loss of $200 

million in FTA-approved financing. 

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to yet another taxpayer funded bailout 

H10926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

of an industry that has been poorly managed 

for years. I voted no when Wall Street came 

asking for their handout in September and I 

will vote no to bailing out corporations that 

have refused to evolve and build products that 

people want to buy. 

The automakers are in trouble because they 

have been mismanaged. For years they built 

gas-guzzlers, stifled innovation, and lobbied 

against reasonable environmental and safety 

standards. Even when credit was flowing freely, Americans weren’t buying Detroit’s products. 

Workers are not to blame—they have already accepted deep wage and benefit cuts. If 

there was anything in this bill that provided 

protection for those workers, then I might think 

differently. What I see, however, is a repeat of 

the September bailout scenario; a large commitment of taxpayer money with very little explanation of how these funds will address the 

significant problems of the industry. Indeed, 

the CEOs tell us that the $15 billion will ‘‘get 

them through January.’’ And then what? 

If you want to see quality cars being made 

by unionized workers, go to my district. At the 

NUMMI plant in Fremont, UAW-organized 

workers build cars, such as Corollas, that people want to buy. This plant is a joint venture 

between GM and Toyota and has made a 

profit for both companies. They are not here 

asking for a bailout. 

Let’s not repeat the mistakes of three 

months ago by throwing good money after 

bad. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, for reasons 

enumerated elsewhere, I strongly support this 

bill. It is essential that Congress take this prudent step to provide a short-term bridge loan 

to help preserve a viable domestic auto industry, and its far-reaching contributions to the 

overall long-term health of our economy, while 

appropriately safeguarding the interests of 

American taxpayers. 

The bill we are considering today contains a 

provision creating a limited antitrust exemption 

for certain consultations in which a U.S. automaker may be asked to engage with its employees, dealers, suppliers, and other creditors 

for the purpose of reaching agreement on a 

restructuring plan for the automaker under the 

bill. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 

I would like to emphasize a few points regarding that provision. 

The antitrust laws are the fundamental legal 

protector of our free market system—the Supreme Court has aptly referred to them as the 

Magna Carta of the free enterprise system. 

Exemptions from the antitrust laws can be 

very harmful and destructive of the basic economic freedom we cherish as Americans. 

For that reason, any proposed antitrust exemption should be very carefully considered 

as to its need. And even if a need can be 

clearly demonstrated, the exemption should be 

carefully focused and of limited duration. 

In keeping with those considerations, this 

exemption is temporary and very focused. It is 

designed to give greater assurance to the various ‘‘interested parties’’—the employees, retirees, dealers, suppliers, shareholders, and 

creditors of a U.S. automaker covered by this 

bill, listed in section 6(a)(1)(B)—who will be 

consulting and negotiating with the automaker 

in an effort to reach agreement on a long-term 

restructuring plan for the automaker pursuant 

to the bill. 

Some of these interested parties are reportedly uncertain as to how their participation in 

these consultations might raise issues under 

the antitrust laws. With the urgent need to 

move quickly on this legislation, it has not 

been possible to sit down with them and understand the precise nature of their concerns. 

Based on similar concerns that are raised 

from time to time in various quarters, the concerns may well be misplaced, reflecting a lack 

of understanding about the antitrust laws, 

which prohibit only conduct that harms competition, permitting the wide range of conduct 

that does not harm competition. 

While these concerns may be misplaced, 

however, they appear to be genuine and held 

in good faith, and could therefore have the effect of discouraging the kinds of participation 

that is needed from all interested parties in 

order to enable the restructuring plans to succeed. To help avert this risk, this antitrust exemption has been carefully crafted to provide 

sufficient reassurance and guidance to interested parties, while avoiding the risk of shielding truly anticompetitive conduct from effective 

antitrust enforcement. 

First, the limited exemption covers only the 

discussions, consultations, and meetings 

among an eligible auto manufacturer and its 

own interested parties. It does not cover joint 

activity among two or more automakers, which 

could create more risk of harm to competition. 

It also does not cover action taking place outside those discussions, consultations, and 

meetings. 

Second, the limited exemption fully preserves the authority of the Federal antitrust 

agencies to bring enforcement action for injunctive relief to stop anticompetitive conduct 

should it occur. Merger enforcement authority 

is also preserved. 

Similarly, the so-called ‘‘per se’’ offenses, 

such as price fixing, market allocation, and 

boycott, remain fully subject to antitrust enforcement. These are not kinds of conduct that 

someone innocently stumbles into. They are 

intentional schemes to subvert competition, 

and can be extremely harmful to the free market system and the economy. 

Third, in the event that the discussions, consultations, and meetings continue for an extended period, the exemption sunsets after 3 

years. In all likelihood, the exemption will 

quickly prove unnecessary. If not, and if the 

negotiations are still ongoing as the end of the 

3-year period approaches, Congress can always consider extending the sunset if the exemption is truly warranted. The sunset is consistent with the recommendation of the Antitrust Modernization Commission that any antitrust exemption should be temporary. 

Finally, in order to encourage whatever further guidance may be appropriate, the provision requires that, to the extent practicable, 

the Federal antitrust enforcement agencies be 

given reasonable advance notice of any discussion, consultation, or meeting covered by 

the provision, and the opportunity to participate. 

As carefully crafted, this provision should 

provide whatever guidance and reassurance 

the interested parties may need that their 

good-faith efforts to cooperate in achieving the 

bill’s important objectives for this important 

bedrock American industry will not inadvertently create antitrust problems, while at the 

same time taking appropriate care not to inadvertently immunize truly anticompetitive conduct that could severely harm the long-term 

health of this industry, the many economic 

sectors it touches, and the American economy 

itself. 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act (H.R. 7321), emergency legislation to authorize and appropriate funding to 

temporarily stabilize the American automobile 

industry. 

The automobile industry provides one of the 

few manufacturing bases left in the United 

States, and approximately 3.3 million jobs in 

the Nation are either directly or indirectly dependent upon it. According to the Economic 

Policy Institute, New Jersey stands to lose 

17,900 jobs if General Motors fails, and 

65,000 jobs if the auto industry collapses— 

and an industry-wide collapse is the likely result if even one of the big-three auto makers 

fails. As we stand on the precipice, already 

facing an unemployment rate more than 6 percent, we cannot afford to stand by and watch 

as millions more in America join the ranks of 

the unemployed. It is well within the realm of 

possibility—some experts argue it is virtually a 

certainty—that allowing even one of our major 

auto makers to fail would send the country 

into a depression. 

The United States is facing a virtual ‘‘perfect 

storm’’ with respect to the many sectors of its 

economy that are simultaneously in distress. 

One of the most damaging outcomes of this 

economic crisis has been that credit markets 

are frozen. In fact, despite the infusion of billions in funding intended to stabilize the financial services markets under the Emergency 

Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, enacted in 

October, credit markets still have not improved 

as of the closing days of 2008. Instead, stable 

banks that have received those Capital Purchase Program, CPP, funds under the EESA 

have tended either to retain the funds to improve their own stability or use the funds to 

purchase other struggling financial services 

entities. Had Troubled Asset Relief Program, 

TARP, funds under the EESA been used for 

the purpose the Treasury Secretary originally 

demanded them for—to purchase troubled assets or implement other mechanisms through 

which those assets could be liquidated and 

thus free up the credit markets—perhaps 

things would be different. 

Under the EESA, the U.S. Comptroller General is required to report every 60 days on 

TARP implementation, and in its first report released last week, the GAO stated that ‘‘Treasury has yet to address a number of critical 

issues, including determining how it will ensure that CPP is achieving its intended goals.’’ 

I am not convinced that the CPP is achieving 

its goals, or even that the CPP program will 

be more effective than using TARP funds or 

other creative mechanisms to liquidate TARP 

assets would have been. In addition, the 

Treasury Secretary and the Bush administration have refused to use even a tiny fraction— 

less than 5 percent—of the TARP funds to 

stabilize the auto industry until the CPP has 

the impact of freeing up credit markets, which 

could then meet the auto industry’s need for financing. Therefore, our major auto makers 

have come to Washington to ask the taxpayers for a loan. 

Some commentators, and indeed some of 

my constituents, have argued that Congress 

should simply let the automakers go bankrupt. 

But the likelihood that that could deepen our 

current recession is too great, and the persons 

who would be punished by congressional inaction are not the ones who created the crisis, 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10927 

but rather the millions of people whose jobs 

depend on the auto industry. 

Therefore, we must support the auto industry. I am pleased to see that the measure before us will provide taxpayers with an equity 

stake in the underlying companies, prohibit the 

payment of dividends to shareholders during 

the life of the loans, and prohibit golden parachutes and payment of bonuses to the top 25 

most highly paid employees at each company. 

In addition, it establishes both a ‘‘Car Czar’’ to 

hold the companies accountable for developing and implementing sustainable restructuring plans, and oversight authority by the 

Government Accountability Office and the 

Special Inspector General overseeing the 

TARP rescue funds. 

But my own personal request to the automakers is that they look deep inside and unearth the roots of the problems that—independently of both the current financial crisis 

and the legacy costs that they have faced that 

other manufacturers have not—have caused 

them to lag behind their competitors overseas. 

It is important for us all to remember that it 

was General Motors that established the Saturn Corporation more than two decades ago, 

with the goal of creating a manufacturing plant 

from scratch to build small cars of superior 

quality and value, combining what was then 

the most advanced technology with the newest and most efficient and environmentally responsible approaches to management. Indeed, within a decade, Saturn achieved those 

goals by producing a car that J.D. Power & 

Associates ranked behind only the Lexus and 

the Infiniti, luxury cars produced by Toyota 

and Nissan overseas, for customer satisfaction 

in 1992. 

And it was General Motors, again, that developed the EV1 electronic car more than one 

decade ago, in response to California’s thenzero-emissions requirement. The EV1 was a 

sleek, fast, powerful vehicle than ran on an 

overnight charge in the garage, and it was the 

much-beloved means of transportation for numerous well-known Hollywood celebrities. And 

yet, within a decade, the EV1 had all but disappeared from the roads and most of them— 

as graphically depicted in the documentary 

‘‘Who Killed the Electric Car’’—were actually 

destroyed. If we don’t understand all of the 

reasons why the success of GM’s Saturn venture waned, or why the GM EV1 was all but 

wiped from the earth, we will never relaunch 

a sustainable auto mobile industry in this 

country. 

But we are here today because the United 

States remains in the throws of a financial crisis, and it is incumbent upon the government 

to act. Although I regret that already-authorized TARP funds are not being used for this 

purpose, and that the plan before us will in 

part cannibalizing the very funds authorized to 

facilitate the efforts of the automakers to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles, I will stand 

firmly behind our auto industry under the conditions the leadership have negotiated, rather 

than let it fail and disappear. I look forward to 

working with the new administration to craft a 

more sustainable, fiscally responsible solution 

to this problem in the coming months. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today 

in favor of taking tough but absolutely necessary action to help save thousands of jobs 

that affect every State in our Union including 

my home State of Missouri. Our country is experiencing a crisis and the problems facing 

automakers must be fixed to help stabilize our 

entire economy. 

Missouri has the second-highest number, 

along with Ohio, of automobile plants in the 

Nation just after Michigan, but the truth is this 

problem is much larger than the Big Three. A 

failure of the auto manufacturing industry not 

only directly affects the dealerships, partsmakers, those with existing car warranties, it 

also puts thousands upon thousands out of 

work—3.3 million nationwide after direct and 

indirect hits are factored. Our country is already facing historically high unemployment. 

We cannot afford to let our manufacturing industry fail; we cannot afford to lose 3.3 million 

more American jobs. 

Missouri has already been hit hard by auto 

manufacturing line closures in addition to layoffs crossing all sectors of the economy. The 

ramifications of doing nothing would be detrimental to our Nation’s already crippling economy. In my home State of Missouri, thousands 

of jobs are on the verge of being permanently 

lost. The auto industry’s roots in our State’s 

economy are far reaching. This is a necessary 

investment for America’s future. 

Realizing that as soon as next year, or even 

sooner, we could lose General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford is a main street dilemma that requires immediate attention and action by Congress. Without action, we are putting our Nations’ economic and national security at risk. 

Make no mistake, the loss of the American 

automobile industry, will cripple communities 

throughout Missouri and throughout our Nation. 

There have been decades of foot dragging 

to produce smaller more fuel-efficient vehicles 

right here in the U.S. while U.S. subsidiaries 

are producing and selling these vehicles overseas with huge success. It’s time for the 

American people have the same opportunity to 

purchase these vehicles. Everyone understands that was a huge mistake and we must 

do everything possible to correct it. 

In the past, loans to the industry have actually paid off for the American taxpayer, and 

this bill does everything possible to ensure this 

will happen again. This bill institutes safeguards to protect taxpayer dollars and promotes future financial and economic success 

for our country. If the automakers do not 

present a feasible restructuring plan to get 

back on the right track early next year they will 

be cut off. 

I want to make one point clear to the auto 

industry: loans given to them by the American 

people should be used to invest in America’s 

interests. I don’t want to hear about taxpayer 

dollars being used to build plants overseas. 

We are facing record-high unemployment. We 

must do everything we can to put people back 

to work. 

Besides the plant jobs, the auto part jobs, 

and the service industry jobs that are intertwined with their manufacturing, will be the 

shuttering of businesses that rely on the employment of tens of thousands in my home 

State alone, more than 3 million nationwide. 

Bankruptcy of one or more of the Big Three 

poses a huge risk. Mere questions of warranty 

and availability of parts, could trigger the collapse of manufacturing causing deep rooted 

problems that affect everyone. 

American innovation and engineering may 

be close to delivering the most energy efficient 

cars the world has ever known and the United 

States desperately needs. American innovation has been, is, and must continue to be the 

world’s leader. 

While it is evident that the Big Three have 

made mistakes, it’s important to note that market share is not down, and overall car sales 

worldwide are down across the board. Other 

countries continue to augment their manufacturers. For years foreign manufacturers have 

not had to absorb escalating healthcare costs. 

Ironically, in the U.S. many of these foreign 

manufacturers enjoy a variety of tax credits 

and tax liability waivers. 

I have met and consulted with a wide-range 

of Missouri stakeholders including the Big 

Three, suppliers, UAW members, and auto 

dealers. All of the stakeholders are going to 

have to make concessions to put together a 

sustainable plan for the future. It’s important 

that everyone come together for the greater 

good. Everyone loses if our auto industry goes 

bankrupt. 

This comprehensive legislation will help the 

struggling U.S. auto industry in the short term, 

while protecting millions of American jobs and 

taxpayers. The limited loans of $14 billion are 

intended to help the struggling automakers 

survive while they prepare plans to restructure 

their companies to build more competitive, 

fuel-efficient, and technologically advanced vehicles. 

This country should not give up on our automotive industry. If the auto industry doesn’t 

make real progress by early next year we can 

and should reevaluate leadership and if need 

be demand the repayment of loans sooner 

rather than later. 

It’s important to recognize that this problem 

is just one piece to a complicated economic 

mess. We must get the auto industry back on 

their feet and we must get credit in the hands 

of the American people so that they can receive the loans necessary to purchase the 

next generation of American ingenuity. 

I’m hopeful Americans will again prove to 

the world that we can overcome competing interests and rally together for the common 

good. 

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is about to embark upon another corporate bailout—this time for Detroit’s Big 

Three automakers—without any assurances to 

the taxpayers that it won’t be back for more. 

In fact, from all news reports, while this bailout 

comes with a starting price of $15 billion, Congressional leadership negotiating the deal fully 

expects that this is just the beginning and that 

taxpayers will be hit up again in the new year. 

Though the already-passed $700-billion Wall 

Street bailout has had little to no success, 

Congress is about to go down this same road 

again. And, it appears that it does so with few 

qualms about the impact of its actions on 

hard-pressed taxpayers. 

We hear promises of strict oversight and accountability measures—but who does the Congress think it’s kidding? 

Already two nonpartisan, independent panels have lambasted Treasury for its execution 

of the current bailout scheme. The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) scathing 

report about the Federal Government’s poor 

oversight says it all in the title: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure Integrity, Accountability, and Transparency. 

Why should taxpayers expect the government’s oversight of this bailout be any different? 

Unfortunately, the Democrat-led Congress 

has chosen to blindly oblige Big Labor at 

H10928 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

every turn, regardless of whether it’s in the 

best interest of taxpayers. 

They have dismissed consideration of alternative proposals that could truly restructure 

these companies over the long-term and help 

them rein in costs. 

They don’t want Ford, GM and Chrysler to 

reorganize under the protection of the bankruptcy courts, even if it would save them without a taxpayer bailout, because it means that 

they would actually make structural changes 

and renegotiate labor contracts without the 

threat of outside lawsuits. 

The Democrats have already spent more 

than a trillion dollars in bailouts this year—why 

not a few billion more? 

Mr. Speaker, the hardworking men and 

women in America did not sign up for this. 

They did not turn over their hard-earned 

money to Uncle Sam just so Congress can 

dole it out to unaccountable companies that 

made poor business decisions for years. 

Throwing taxpayer money at Detroit’s spiraling problems will not fix their long-term 

management and productivity troubles and 

they will only be back for more time and time 

again. 

Congress should not look the other way and 

put the taxpayers, and their children and 

grandchildren, on the hook for billions more in 

unaccountable spending. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7321, Auto Industry Financing and 

Restructuring Act. 

The automobile industry is one of the most 

critical manufacturers and job providers in the 

country and in North Carolina. Automobiles 

account for $690 billion, or about twenty percent of all retail sales in the United States. 

Over 4.5 million jobs in the United States depend on these 3 companies, and my State of 

North Carolina would stand to lose over 

95,000 jobs with an auto industry shutdown. 

There are over 692 new-vehicle dealerships in 

North Carolina as well as hundreds of auto 

parts suppliers. These dealerships are often 

economic hubs of many of our small towns. 

The fallout of such a shutdown would be felt 

throughout all sectors of our economy and on 

almost every main street in America. 

H.R. 7321 would provide the necessary financial assistance to keep our largest automobile manufacturers in business. Today’s 

spiraling economy has been particularly devastating for the 3 largest automakers in the 

United States. Car sales are slumping sharply 

in the face of recession and the stagnant credit market has paralyzed these companies in 

the middle of their restructuring efforts. It has 

also left dealers unable to help finance most 

of their customers and move automobiles off 

of the lot. 

H.R. 7321 would allow the President to designate one or more officers in the Executive 

Branch to oversee approximately $14 billion in 

bridge loans or lines of credit to the requesting 

companies. H.R. 7321 includes many taxpayer 

protections to help ensure that the government 

is repaid, including providing for stock in the 

company equal to 20 percent of the loan 

amount, and giving the government ‘‘super seniority’’ designation of the loans to ensure that 

the taxpayer is first in line to be repaid by the 

companies. In addition, the bill forbids bonuses or incentives for the 25 most highly paid 

employees in each company, and strictly prohibits ‘‘golden parachutes’’ during the life of 

these bridge loans. Furthermore, the President’s designee will have a strong oversight 

role. The designee must establish appropriate 

measures to assess the restructuring plans, 

and evaluate the progress of each auto manufacturer within 45 days in order for loans to be 

approved. In order to qualify for any bridge 

loan, the auto company will have to submit a 

plan to achieve long-term viability, international competitiveness, energy efficiency, 

and plans for repayment of the government 

loan. 

It is crucial that our Nation’s leading automakers continue to restructure in order to 

meet the demands of a changing market, and 

to become healthier companies that can help 

lead American manufacturing in the future. 

Such healthier companies can continue to provide an economic engine to our Nation and 

provide innovations that can drive future 

growth. 

I regret that these bridge loans are necessary, but today we can ill afford to risk the 

loss of more jobs and further damage to the 

economic base that our cities and small towns 

depend on in North Carolina and across the 

country. I support H.R. 7321, Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, and I urge my 

colleagues to join me in voting for its passage. 

Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today to express my disappointment that the 

House has once again been forced to consider legislation to rescue some of America’s 

most important and renowned companies. I regret the need to cast this vote, but I believe 

voting for this legislation is the better choice. 

Congress cannot allow the Big Three automakers to go out of business. They are too 

important to our economy and our national security. In my district alone there are more than 

3,000 jobs directly dependent on the auto industry, accounting for salaries of more than 

$150 million annually. The industry is a significant contributor to the tax base of New York 

State, which is already facing severe financial 

turmoil. 

Beyond its economic importance, maintaining a successful domestic automobile industry 

is vital for the long term interests of the United 

States. There are certain industries which we 

must maintain domestically for national security reasons. During World War II, the automobile industry led the way in the conversion 

to a war economy by altering their manufacturing plants to make armored vehicles and 

tanks instead of cars and trucks. Few companies still maintain that capacity, and so for that 

reason alone we cannot let the industry fail. 

We need to help the auto industry, but I do 

not believe we should be giving a blank check 

to anyone. That is why I appreciate the work 

this Congress has done to make the legislation tolerable. This is not a give away. We are 

voting on a loan which I expect to be paid 

back, and paid back with interest. It has protections for the taxpayers. As long as the loan 

remains outstanding, no dividends can be 

paid, no executive bonuses or golden parachutes can be issued and the government will 

receive warrants for equity value equivalent to 

part of the value of the loan. In addition, this 

loan takes legal priority over every other debt 

and obligation the companies face. 

I am disappointed about provisions that this 

bill does not contain. I recognize that the 

presidentially appointed overseer will have a 

great deal of power to force specific changes 

in the way our Nation’s auto industry does 

business, but I would have preferred to see 

many of these changes specifically tied to the 

loans by this legislation. For example, in their 

presentations last week, the CEOs of General 

Motors, Ford and Chrysler claimed that with 

these loans they will be able to meet and even 

exceed the increased CAFE standards Congress finally mandated last year. I believe that 

they should be required to do so by the legislation. It is critical that, over the coming 

months, Congress exercises the necessary 

oversight to make sure that the Big Three 

keep their word. 

I would have liked to see clear goals that required a set percentage of products produced 

by the auto companies to be high-efficiency 

vehicles. I would have liked to see a commitment from the automakers to make hybrid 

technology options more prevalent and available more often. I would like to see more substantial investment made into research and 

development for new, greener, energy-efficient 

technology. Perhaps most importantly, I would 

have liked to see a guarantee of true reform, 

starting from the top, in how these companies 

do business and the kinds of cars they 

produce and sell. Taxpayer-supported companies cannot be allowed to continue the sort of 

ill-advised business decisions the industry has 

been making the last few years. 

Mr. Speaker, I hope that today will be the 

first step towards the beginning of a new era 

for U.S. automakers. Congress is doing what 

we must, stepping in and saving the manufacturers, but we are not doing so without a commitment for genuine and long lasting reform 

on their part. 

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 

H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and 

Restructuring Act. 

Our country is mired in the worst economic 

crisis since the Great Depression. We have 

been in recession for well over a year. Manufacturing activity and vehicle sales are at a 26- 

year low. Unemployment is at a staggering 6.7 

percent. Over half a million jobs were lost in 

November alone. Since the Bush Administration took over in January of 2001, unemployment has risen by 71 percent. 

The domestic automobile industry and its 

blue collar workforce have been especially 

hard hit by this current economic crisis. Over 

the last several weeks, I’ve heard a lot of 

blame being passed around for the situation 

our car companies find themselves in. I agree 

with those who say the Big Three have been 

too rigid in their opposition to building more 

fuel efficient cars. I believe strongly, as many 

Americans do, that the Bush Administration 

and Congress have not done enough to create 

and protect American jobs. But it is not the 

auto executives or politicians who are suffering. It’s the hard working UAW members 

who spend every day on an assembly line to 

support their family. They are the victims of 

corporate greed, bad business models, and 

government indifference. They are the reason 

we are here today, months after Congress adjourned for the year. 

The consequences of a collapse of the domestic auto industry would be catastrophic for 

working families. Recession would spiral into 

depression. Millions of jobs would be lost. It is 

something we must prevent. 

The bill before us gives $15 billion in conditional loans to the auto industry to help them 

survive over the next few months. During that 

time, they will be required to achieve viability, 

international competitiveness, fuel efficiency, 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10929 

and reduced emissions. The bill gives the 

President the authority to appoint a ‘‘car czar’’ 

who will be responsible for ensuring these 

conditions are met. If the car czar determines 

that the companies have not made themselves 

viable by the end of March, they will be required to pay back the government immediately. If the companies utilize this line of 

credit wisely and restructure into successful, 

sustainable operations, they will still have to 

pay the money back with interest, but the government will have the opportunity to turn a 

profit by gaining equity in these companies. 

Furthermore, the car czar will have the authority to prevent an automaker from closing the 

doors of any of its factories or from 

outsourcing its operations to another country, 

should the czar determine such an action detrimental to the viability of the company. 

Like all legislation, this bill is not perfect. But 

it is necessary. Letting the auto industry collapse would unfairly punish America’s workers 

for sins they did not commit. 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. 

Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation’s 

workers. The workers who built this country 

following depression and war. I rise in support 

of this loan program for our Nation’s automobile manufacturers. 

Just last Friday the Department of Labor reported that employers slashed 533,000 jobs in 

November: the most jobs lost in 34 years. As 

a percentage, this figure now jettisoned our 

Nation’s unemployment rate to 6.7 percent; 

the largest one-month decline since December 

1974. Overall, since the start of the current recession, the United States has shed 1.9 million jobs, 1.3 million of which has disappeared 

in the last 4 months. In the manufacturing sector, manufacturing jobs lost in November alone 

come to a total of 85,000. In fact, in the last 

4 months we have witnessed the disappearance of 258,000 manufacturing jobs, and 

since the outset of the recession last December, over half a million (604,000) manufacturing jobs have been lost. 

So with regard to the question of whether or 

not to assist our Nation’s domestic auto manufactures, given that the Big Three automakers 

generate one out of every 10 jobs in our Nation, merely letting these businesses go bankrupt is simply not an acceptable option. Indeed, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler account for roughly 70 percent of U.S. auto production and are estimated to support around 5 

million jobs across all 50 states. And according to a report released last week by the Center for Automotive Research, the failure of 

even one U.S. automaker would mean the 

loss of millions of jobs and cost our economy 

hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Employment for millions of hard working 

Americans depends on a strong domestic auto 

industry. And nations throughout the world, 

such as Japan, South Korea, and France support their domestic auto industries, so we certainly would not be creating a precedent or an 

unfair playing field with respect to international 

trade. Indeed, President-elect Obama stated 

just last week that ‘‘the auto industry is the 

backbone of American manufacturing and a 

critical part of our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. . . .’’ Given that our 

government recently provided a tremendous 

amount of financial assistance ($700 billion) to 

sustain our country’s financial sector, I believe 

that to provide assistance with strong federal 

oversight to our Nation’s automakers is critical 

to our workforce. 

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 

support of a bridge loan for the American 

automotive industry. 

Last month the heads of General Motors, 

Ford, and Chrysler came to Congress seeking 

a $25 billion emergency bridge loan. They 

each flew to Washington on corporate jets 

without a credible restructuring plan for longterm viability and profitability. The message 

they got from Congress was, ‘‘no plan, no 

money.’’ 

Last week the CEOs returned to Washington with detailed plans to create new, lean, 

profitable, and competitive companies. Their 

plans include manufacturing more fuel-efficient 

cars and crossovers, concessions from the 

United Auto Workers, more streamlined companies with less brands and retail outlets, reductions in manufacturing and structural costs, 

as well as many other necessary elements to 

make the companies viable again. 

Through bipartisan negotiations with the 

White House, the Congressional leadership 

has produced legislation that offers the ailing 

automakers a $15 billion bridge loan if they 

agree to strict oversight of their finances and 

business practices. 

Many people have suggested that bankruptcy is a better option for the automakers. A 

recent study by an automotive research firm 

found that 80 percent of car buyers would 

switch brands if the vehicle they want comes 

from an automaker that has filed for bankruptcy. If the companies are forced into bankruptcy it would ultimately lead to liquidation 

which would lead to even more turmoil in our 

economy. Manufacturing facilities would close 

immediately. Hourly and salaried employees 

would lose their jobs and the small businesses 

that provide parts and services to the automotive industry would lose billions of dollars if 

the ‘‘Detroit 3’’ went into liquidation. These 

devastating losses would be felt nationwide 

and our economy can’t afford it. 

The ‘‘Detroit 3’’ automakers have made numerous bad decisions in the past and no one 

has been more critical of them than I have, 

but allowing them to fail would cause a chain 

of events felt well beyond Detroit. Job losses 

would occur in every sector, from the engineers needed to design the cars, to the car 

dealership employees that make their living 

selling them. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. could lose up to 3.3 million jobs if one or more of the automakers fail. 

The same study found that California alone 

could lose up to 305,900 jobs. A shutdown of 

the auto industry would have a catastrophic 

effect on an economy that is already in historic 

distress. That’s why prudent steps must be 

taken to prevent this from happening. 

H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and 

Restructuring Act will give the participating 

automakers a $15 billion, 7-year bridge loan at 

a 5 percent interest rate for the first 5 years 

and a 9 percent interest rate thereafter. The 

funding for these loans will come from $25 billion that Congress already approved in Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

The bill incorporates strong protections and 

numerous oversight provisions to protect the 

American taxpayer. It includes the creation of 

a ‘‘Car Czar,’’ a person to be appointed by the 

President in order to oversee the loan program. This oversight official would also have 

the power to negotiate with creditors, unions 

and other stakeholders in the restructuring 

process. 

The car companies are barred from paying 

bonuses to their executives and barred from 

paying dividends to shareholders while the 

loans are outstanding. The bill also gives the 

government an equity stake in the companies 

so that taxpayers will benefit when the companies return to profit. It also mandates that the 

automakers submit to an audit by the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector 

General for the Treasury’s financial bailout 

program. 

I voted ‘‘yes’’ today because I believe that 

the stakes are too high for the economy to not 

do anything. Without the bridge loan to the 

American automakers we will put the jobs of 

millions of Americans at risk and impose further strife on our economy. Their failure would 

reverberate far beyond the manufacturing sector and a bridge loan to keep these companies 

viable while they restructure is necessary to 

protect the economy in this financial crisis. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 

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

provide $15 billion in bridge loans for the Big 

3 domestic automakers, to help them weather 

the current credit crunch and financial crisis. 

These loans are critical for the survival of 

our domestic automakers, our manufacturing 

sector, and the American middle class. 

One in ten American jobs are linked to the 

auto industry. Chrysler, Ford and General Motors support about 5 million American jobs. 

More than 1 million American workers and retirees are directly employed or supported by 

the major automakers. Two million Americans 

receive health care benefits through the auto 

industry. An estimated 3 million jobs would be 

lost in the first year if the American automakers collapsed—nearly three times the jobs 

lost nationwide this year. 

The Ann Arbor-based Center for Automotive 

Research estimates that the collapse of the 

domestic auto industry would mean an estimated 2.5 million jobs lost over the next year, 

costing Federal, State, and local governments 

a total of $50 billion next year and $108 billion 

over the next 3 years. 

In my district, the dramatic drop in demand 

for new cars and trucks is already taking a toll 

on parts suppliers and our domestic steel industry. At Cliffs Natural Resources’ Tilden and 

Empire mines in Marquette County, reduced 

demand for iron ore to produce steel for the 

automakers has led to the layoff of 350 workers. The closure of the Dura Automotive Systems plant in Antrim County caused 300 jobs 

to be lost. Lexamar in Boyne City had to layoff 

90 workers, Northern Tool in Mio laid off 68 

workers, H&H Tube in Cheboygan closed 

causing 60 jobs to be lost, and layoffs at more 

than a dozen other suppliers to the automakers across northern Michigan are the result of the current economic crisis. 

What we are debating today is not new. In 

1979, the Federal Government provided 

Chrysler a $1.5 billion loan. Chrysler paid back 

the full amount with interest in 4 years, and 

operated successfully for 2 decades because 

of this assistance. 

Why are some of my colleagues so willing 

to spend more than $700 billion to help Wall 

Street, but so hesitant to assist an industry 

that creates so many middle-class jobs? 

According to data analyzed by ABC News, 

in 2007, Wall Street’s five biggest firms—Bear 

Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, 

Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley—paid a 

record $39 billion in bonuses to themselves. 

H10930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

Those 2007 bonuses were paid, even 

though the shareholders in those firms last 

year collectively lost about $74 billion in stock 

declines—their worst year since 2002. 

If split equally among the approximately 

186,000 employees at the former Big Five 

Houses, that bonus money means an average 

of $201,500 per employee—almost six times 

the $34,076 median household income in my 

district last year. 

Instead of preserving $200,000 bonuses, 

Congress should be preserving American middle class jobs. 

In addition, the legislation we are considering today has greater oversight and stronger 

taxpayer protections than the Wall Street bailout. 

There were four main principles that should 

have applied to the Wall Street bailout: transparency and accountability; no windfalls or 

golden parachutes for executives; strong oversight by Congress; and effective taxpayer protections. The Wall Street bailout final bill did 

not contain these safeguards. 

The auto loan legislation Congress is considering today provides greater transparency, 

stronger restrictions on executive compensation, tough oversight provisions, and more taxpayer protections. 

This legislation requires a commitment on 

the part of auto executives, employees, labor 

unions, dealers, suppliers, creditors and 

shareholders to participate in the restructuring 

efforts that will ensure the long-term viability of 

an industry that helped create this Nation’s 

middle class. 

The jobs of millions of middle-class Americans and the pensions and benefits of millions 

more depend on a vibrant domestic auto industry. 

The automakers are not asking for a handout. They are asking for a loan, which in the 

current credit crisis only the Federal Government can provide. 

This legislation includes strong protections 

for the taxpayers and I have every confidence 

the loans will be paid back with interest and 

the result will be a stronger auto industry and 

a stronger American economy. 

As the automakers implement restructuring 

plans and the economy improves, these loans 

will have laid the groundwork for the recall of 

laid-off workers and the creation of new jobs. 

Doing nothing is not an option. Inaction by 

Congress would cost the American taxpayers 

more than this legislation. 

I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘yes’’ on this 

important loan assistance for the automakers, 

to preserve middle-class jobs and improve our 

economy while protecting taxpayers! 

LAYOFFS/CLOSURES IN MI–01 IN 2008 

Company City Date Accident type Layoffs 

Jacquart Fabric Products, Inc. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Ironwood ............................... 1/29/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 11 Citizens Bank .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Hancock ................................ 4/9/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 21 

Khoury Furniture ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Kingsford .............................. 9/9/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 7 

Fayas and Sons ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Kingsford .............................. 10/22/2008 Plant Closing ........................ 12 

Lloyd/Flanders ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Menominee ........................... 11/5/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 7 

Cleveland-Cliffs (Tilden Mine) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Ishpeming ............................. 11/7/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 200 

Cleveland Cliffs (Empire) .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Negaunee .............................. 11/7/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 151 

Pardon, Inc. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Gladstone ............................. 11/24/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 10 

Engineered Machine Products ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Escanaba .............................. 11/24/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 20 Bill Burton & Sons ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Newberry ............................... 3/25/2008 Plant Closing ........................ 14 

Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Sault Ste. Marie ................... 8/11/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 75 H & H Tube ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Cheboygan ............................ 1/7/2008 Plant Closing ........................ 60 

Cooper Standard Automotive ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Gaylord ................................. 8/28/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 8 Northern Tool ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Mio ........................................ 10/30/2008 Plant Closing ........................ 68 

Lexamar Corp. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Boyne City ............................ 2/22/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 90 

Maverick Metal Stamping ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Mancelona ............................ 3/19/2008 Plant Closing ........................ 40 

Dura Automotive Systems ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Mancelona ............................ 4/1/2008 Plant Closing ........................ 300 

Traverse Bay Manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Elk Rapids ............................ 7/14/2008 Plant Closing ........................ 25 Odawa Casino ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Petoskey ................................ 8/19/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 69 

Manthei, Inc. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Petoskey ................................ 8/25/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 14 

Charlevoix Manufacturing Co. ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Charleviox ............................. 8/25/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 18 

Northern Michigan Review ................................................................................................................................................................................................ Petoskey ................................ 9/12/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 11 East Jordan Iron Works ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... East Jordan .......................... 10/16/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 41 

Anchor Danley ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Bellaire ................................. 11/20/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 12 Sure Shift Transmissions .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Kawkawlin ............................ 3/27/2008 Plant Closing ........................ 5 

Magline, Inc. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Pinconning ............................ 5/27/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 5 

Tubular Metal Systems ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Pinconning ............................ 8/6/2008 Mass Layoff .......................... 11 

Total layoffs ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................... ........................ ............................................... 1,305 

This list is based on data from the State of Michigan, regional labor centers and media accounts. It should not be considered comprehensive. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing 

and Restructuring Act. It is clear that the auto 

industry itself carries a great deal of responsibility for the crisis it faces today, due to an inability or unwillingness to take the steps necessary to compete in a 21st century market. 

Nonetheless, I recognize the urgency of extending federal loans to Detroit’s automakers, 

as their collapse could trigger massive job 

losses and ripple effects throughout a wide 

range of industries. One in ten American jobs 

is linked to the domestic auto industry, and it 

is estimated that as many as 10,000 jobs 

could be affected by its failure in my home 

state of Rhode Island. 

To win my support, it was imperative that 

this bill place strict conditions and requirements on the automakers receiving assistance, and I believe it meets that test. These 

companies will have to submit a final and acceptable long-term restructuring plan by March 

31, 2009, and if adequate progress has not 

been made by February 15th, 2009 on efforts 

to stabilize the auto industry, the companies 

will be forced to repay their loan. Their restructuring plans must show how the companies will achieve long-term viability, international competitiveness and energy efficiency. Furthermore, upon enactment of this 

bill, the administration must immediately appoint a ‘‘car czar’’ to monitor the progress of 

these plans. This designee will also have veto 

power over company expenditures of more 

than $100 million. H.R. 7321 also demands 

accountability to taxpayers by banning golden 

parachutes to company executives, bonuses 

for the 25 most highly paid employees, and 

corporate jets. Finally, a company may not 

pay dividends to shareholders over the duration of the loan. 

Mr. Speaker, our domestic car manufacturers have made some unwise business decisions in the past. However, the fall of the U.S. 

auto industry would be a devastating blow to 

our already fragile economy, impacting millions of workers and countless businesses, 

large and small. Today, we have the opportunity to give these companies a chance for 

survival and to point them in the right direction 

for our future needs as a country, which includes a strong manufacturing base for fuel-efficient vehicles. I encourage my colleagues to 

vote for H.R. 7321 and in support of the future 

of our country’s auto industry. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I think it is reasonable to assume that I am 

not alone when I say that my office has been 

contacted with hundreds of phone calls and emails asking Congress not to spend billions 

more to bailout the Big 3 American automakers. Congress has already asked the 

American taxpayer to stomach a $700 billion 

package of economic relief aimed at 

unfreezing the credit markets. It is wrong to 

ask American families to trust that billions in 

bailout relief for three specific companies will 

do anything but cement a dangerous and expensive precedent for future big government 

spending and control of a vital industry in 

America. 

In fact, at this time the credit markets have 

not been unfrozen after the onslaught of this 

recent economic downturn, and I hope Congress, this current administration, and the incoming administration will ensure that the programs we have passed into law already are 

implemented and reviewed. Recent reports of 

a failure to adequately utilize the oversight 

mechanisms outlined in the economic rescue 

package are troubling. The taxpayers deserve 

to know that we are following the letter of the 

law. 

Nevertheless, the debate today is on whether we should give $15 billion dollars to help 

shore up the books of General Motors, Ford, 

and Chrysler. The primary argument that continues to be made in support of this bailout is 

predicated upon the claim that bankruptcy is 

not an option. Never mind that other companies and industries—most notably the members of the airline industry—have successfully 

emerged from bankruptcy stronger, more 

agile, and successful. We have a bankruptcy 

process in place, the sole purpose of which is 

to deal with circumstances similar to those 

that GM, Ford, and Chrysler face. Unfortunately, in typical Washington fashion, Congress wants to reinvent the wheel and create 

a new process and a new bureaucratic office 

in the form of a ‘‘Car Czar.’’ Such a redundant 

proposal would be slightly less harmless were 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10931 

a $15 billion taxpayer funded price tag not 

tacked onto it. But it is. 

The bankruptcy process that already exists 

does not spell the end of a company or the 

loss of every one of their jobs. The scare tactics that have been spread around that without 

this multi-billionaire bailout, the American auto 

industry would disappear is just not the case. 

In fact, bankruptcy procedures would allow the 

companies to restructure to make them competitive in the global market. Bankruptcy is 

never an ideal situation for any company but 

it is far more preferable to spending billions of 

taxpayer dollars and ceding control to big government. 

It should be noted that opposition to this 

massive bailout is not a commentary on my or 

my colleagues’ support for the American auto 

industry. We represent American automotive 

dealerships, American automakers, parts manufacturers, the people they employ, and in 

many instances, we own American automobiles. We want to see these companies 

prosper, build the future fleet of automobiles 

for the world to drive, and continue to employ 

millions of hardworking Americans. What 

many of us are unwilling to accept is the suggestion that taxpayers need to be signing the 

check to keep particular businesses in a particular industry afloat when there is a sound, 

bankruptcy process already available. 

It is clear from every angle that the American auto industry needs to make some dramatic changes to their business model and to 

the current agreements they have with the 

unions who represent their employees. These 

changes will make them financially stronger 

and more competitive. It will help protect current and future employees. They can accomplish this without a taxpayer funded bailout, 

and it would be unwise to betray the interests 

of American taxpayers by choosing to simply 

throw money at the problem. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor 

the life and service of William Spoelhof, president emeritus of Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was born in 1909 in 

Paterson, New Jersey, and passed away on 

December 3, 2008, at the age of 98. 

William Spoelhof graduated from Calvin College in 1931, and began teaching history and 

civics at the secondary level. He received his 

masters of arts degree from the University of 

Michigan in 1937, and began his doctoral 

studies there. 

During World War II, Mr. Spoelhof enlisted 

in the U.S. Navy, and served our country in 

the Office of Strategic Services. Following the 

war, he completed his doctoral work, and went 

to Calvin College to teach history and political 

science in 1946. 

After becoming president of Calvin College, 

Dr. Spoelhof oversaw the process of moving 

Calvin College from its original Franklin Street 

campus, located in urban Grand Rapids, to its 

current Knollcrest campus in southeast Grand 

Rapids. 

Dr. Spoelhof carefully balanced the college’s 

vision for excellent academics with its relationship with the Christian Reformed Church, as 

he effectively steered the college through occasional church conflicts and the tumultuous, 

nation-wide student protests of the 1960s. 

In 1976, Dr. Spoelhof announced his retirement after 25 years, the longest serving president in Calvin College’s history. After his formal retirement, he was named president 

emeritus and maintained an office and steady 

presence at the College, offering continued 

support and goodwill whenever needed. 

Dr. Spoelhof was a Christian role model and 

mentor to many faculty members, staff and 

students, as he provided wisdom and counsel 

to thousands during his more than 8 decades 

of service to Calvin College. 

On a personal note, Dr. Spoelhof recruited 

me from the University of California at Berkeley to teach physics at Calvin College. I am 

deeply grateful for his guidance and for leading me to teach at a wonderful, Christian liberal arts college. 

Dr. Spoelhof is fondly remembered for his 

contributions to daily discussions with retired 

faculty and students at the ‘‘Emeritorium’’, and 

for his kind words to passers-by around the 

campus. 

In 1935, William Spoelhof married Miss 

Angeline Nydam, and they had three children, 

Robert Spoelhof, Elsa Scherphorn, and Peter 

Spoelhof. Ange, as Dr. Spoelhof lovingly 

called his wife, passed away in 1994. 

Dr. Spoelhof lived a life of gratitude, and desired to bring God glory in all he did. On December 3, 2008, the Calvin College community lost a visionary leader and wise friend. He 

is to be honored and recognized for his outstanding devotion and service as a member of 

the military, a Calvin College professor, and 

president and friend. 

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, no one wants to 

see the auto industry fail. I don’t want to see 

this. This would result in millions of job lost. I 

don’t, however, believe this is the right approach for the long-term viability of the American auto industry and the sustainability of millions of American workers. 

In October, the Treasury Secretary came to 

Congress asking for a $700 billion blank check 

for the financial industry. I said then and I repeat today, a quick bailout fix might work for 

a short time, but it may not be long before we 

are asked again for more tax dollars. In fact, 

some have said the $15 billion being given to 

the auto manufacturers will get them through 

to March 2009. Then what? A quick bailout fix 

might work for the short term, but without addressing the underlying problems, we will be 

asked again for more tax dollars. 

We cannot keep passing bailout after bailout 

without fundamental reforms to help American 

workers and businesses achieve long-term 

prosperity. The plan offered today offers more 

government involvement instead of incentives 

for private-sector solutions. We are placing 

risks on the American taxpayer that private investors are not willing to take. Furthermore, 

this bill does nothing to address economic 

competitiveness barriers faced by the American automotive industry. 

I also strongly oppose the job-killing provision contained in this bill that would ban these 

automakers from leasing or owning business 

jets. The use of business jets by company 

leaders is not why the U.S. auto industry is in 

financial trouble. This provision is a symbolic 

slap in the face to more than 1.2 million workers spread across every State whose jobs depend on general aviation. Banning our automakers from leasing or owning jets makes as 

much sense as asking them to stop using 

BlackBerrys and laptops—tools that have 

made us the most efficient and productive 

workforce in the world. 

I remain committed to working for a longterm solution with Democrats and Republicans 

who are willing to put the good of our country 

ahead of short-term fixes. It’s the right thing to 

do. 

Mr. HERGER. Mr Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The truth is that the 

‘‘Big Three’’ didn’t get into this position overnight. They are suffering from decades of poor 

management decisions, uncompetitive labor 

agreements, and failure to stay at the cutting 

edge of innovation. And while this bailout may 

provide some short-term relief for these companies, it doesn’t fix their fundamental problems. 

My constituents want to know why their tax 

dollars should be used to bail out companies 

that haven’t been willing to make the necessary changes to stay competitive. They also 

want to know where we will draw the line. Lots 

of businesses are hurting because of this recession. How many more bailouts will they be 

asked to pay for? We all know that this $14 

billion is only the first installment. Until these 

companies are thoroughly restructured and 

modernized, they will just keep coming back 

for more taxpayer money. 

As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I’m also concerned by the last-minute 

inclusion of a provision that requires the federal government to insure certain leases that 

the IRS has ruled are illegal tax shelters. Taxpayers who play by the rules certainly don’t 

want to see a bailout for agencies that participated in questionable tax deals. The collapse 

of AIG does raise some difficult issues, but 

this provision needs more consideration and 

should not be in this bill. 

Mr. Speaker, this is an all-around bad deal 

for the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to vote 

‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, since World 

War II, America’s middle class has been built 

and strengthened by the auto industry—not 

just by the companies that make cars and 

trucks but also by those that make parts for 

them. In Missouri, the auto industry is particularly important to our economy, creating hundreds of well paying jobs in Kansas City and 

St. Louis, and in smaller towns like Sedalia 

and Versailles. 

Sadly, because of a variety of conditions 

that have been made worse by the global 

credit crisis, the auto industry has fallen on 

terribly difficult times and is on the verge of 

collapse. The urgency of the automakers’ troubles has prompted our debate today in Congress. 

The auto industry is unique in our country 

and must be given a chance to restructure 

and become more viable into the future. Without assistance, the industry will likely fail and 

millions of jobs will be in jeopardy. 

Today’s legislation has been carefully written with views incorporated from Congressional Republicans and Democrats and from 

the President. It would provide immediate help 

to the auto industry and its employees while 

simultaneously forcing them to become leaner, 

greener, and more competitive in the 21st 

century. 

The bill would authorize a loan of up to $15 

billion to the car companies in exchange for 

their promise to draw up more realistic business plans. To ensure the industry restructures according to the law, a powerful ‘‘car 

czar’’ would manage the process and have a 

great deal of authority with respect to lending 

money and recalling loans, if necessary. 

The bill would further protect taxpayers by 

allowing them to profit from a participating 

H10932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

companies’ recovery and by requiring that the 

government be repaid before other lenders. It 

also would prohibit auto company shareholders from earning dividends during the life 

of the loans, would ban excessive corporate 

pay and the ownership of private aircraft by 

auto companies, and would require strong, 

independent oversight by the nonpartisan 

Government Accountability Office. 

I am unhappy that we find ourselves considering a loan of such magnitude to America’s 

auto industry. But, after careful consideration 

and review, I am convinced that inaction by 

Congress would be far more catastrophic to 

American workers, to the fragile economy, and 

to our country. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7321. With this vote today, the 

Congress is acting decisively to protect American auto workers and dealers in every Congressional district in the country and sets Detroit on the path to near-term and long-term 

economic viability. 

We cannot forget that the auto industry is 

the backbone of our domestic manufacturing 

sector—the very sector which drives our economy. Additionally, should one or more of the 

Big Three automakers fail, it would mean the 

loss of more than 100,000 jobs directly associated with the industry in my home state of 

Michigan and more than 3 million jobs around 

the country indirectly associated with the industry, such as auto dealers and auto part 

suppliers. 

At the same time, I and my fellow Members 

in the Congress are wary of bailing out or rewarding companies that have so often pursued their own interests at the expense of the 

public good. Whether it was fighting to undermine more demanding fuel efficiency standards or dragging their feel when it came to developing electric car and hybrid technology, 

the Big 3 are in a large way responsible for 

the predicament they find themselves in today. 

Now, the executives of Big 3 have come to 

Capitol Hill, not as titans of industry, but as 

caretakers of uncompetitive behemoths on the 

verge of collapse. They are in no position to 

make demands of the American people and 

the aid offered by the Congress today reflects 

that reality. 

I believe that the aid package offered to the 

Big 3 here today extracts real, tangible, expansive reforms from the industry. With this 

bill we are sending a clear message to Detroit: 

If you are to survive, you must dramatically 

alter your business models, slim your corporate structure, spin off unprofitable lines, invest in the technologies of the future, and, 

above all else, cease producing the gas-guzzling steel chariots of the past. There is no alternative to these reforms. This bridge loan 

will only work if it truly serves as a bridge to 

the future and not as a cushion slowing inevitable decline. 

Over the last month, there has been much 

discussion about the need for a strong central 

figure to oversee the dramatic changes being 

undertaken by the auto industry. I called for 

the creation of such a position and I am heartened to see that an auto czar-type position is 

established with this legislation. 

If Detroit does its part, the Congress can 

and will do much to make the American auto 

industry the world and industry leader it once 

was. The $25 billion authorized in the 2007 

Energy Bill and appropriated by the Congress 

to retrofit the Big 3’s aging factories was a 

step in the right direction. It was my hope that 

this money would be left untouched during the 

current debate, so that it could continue to further the original purposes the Congress intended. I remain hopeful that the $15 billion 

appropriated for the auto companies in this 

Act will be refunded when we return in January with a larger Democratic majority and a 

change-minded new President. 

Let me be clear—this bill is far from perfect. 

I would have preferred that a provision that 

mandates that bridge loan recipients withdraw 

from their suit against California’s higher tailpipe emission standards remain in the bill. 

Stripping this provision will accomplish little. 

As my colleagues in the upper body, Senators 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN of California and BILL NELSON of Florida, have noted, GM and Ford have 

laid out business plans indicating that they intend to outperform the California fuel economy 

standards within a few years anyway. The fact 

that blocking these suits would have absolutely no effect on the Big 3’s bottom lines 

makes these taxpayer subsidized lawsuits 

even more outrageous. 

I also think we must acknowledge the failures in leadership which have contributed to 

the dire straits the Big 3 find themselves in at 

this time. The New York Times and others 

have called for the resignation of the Big 3’s 

CEOs, citing their complicity in the current crisis and their lack of foresight and competitive 

instincts. I support this call because even now, 

there is tremendous evidence that the leadership of the Big 3 just doesn’t get it. 

Just today, in an interview on Fox News 

Channel, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz stated 

that Americans want more sports utility vehicles and large pickup trucks and that small vehicles are a bad investment. 

I strongly encourage the ‘‘Auto Czar,’’ or 

‘‘President’s Designee’’ as it is referred to in 

this legislation, to push for the removal of any 

and all executives at the Big 3 who stand in 

the way of a greener, more fuel efficient auto 

industry. 

Finally, it should not go unnoticed that during the final legislative debate overseen by the 

43rd President of the United States, the current Administration chose to fight tooth and 

nail against strong measures aimed at furthering the fight against global warming and 

promoting energy independence. We are only 

here today because Treasury Secretary 

Paulson could find $300 billion to invest in 

Wall Street financiers who manipulated securities and other financial tools for a living, but 

couldn’t find $15 billion to help working men 

and women who create products made and 

consumed here in the United States of America. Instead of gracefully acknowledging the 

will of the American people, this lame duck 

President yet again fought against progress. It 

is a fitting reminder of the politics that we 

leave behind with this vote today and, hopefully, of the brighter days that await us. 

I encourage my colleagues to support the 

bill. 

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. 

Speaker, please let the record reflect that had 

I been present to vote on final passage for 

H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and 

Restructuring Act, I would have voted ‘‘nay.’’ 

This bill is a vague and ambiguous attempt to 

restructure the domestic auto industry and 

lacks the specificity necessary to protect taxpayers. This bill does nothing to guarantee 

that once domestic automakers receive billions 

of dollars in taxpayer money that they will become independent of government funding. 

The bill was introduced after 11 a.m. on December 10, 2008. However, the House began 

consideration of the bill at 2:30 p.m. the very 

same day. It is unreasonable to expect Members of Congress to take their first vote in less 

than five hours after a bill has been made 

public. If this language would have been made 

available at least 24 hours before being voted 

upon, I would have had adequate time to travel to Washington to cast this important vote. 

This is not the ‘‘open and fair government’’ 

that Democrats have promised. 

Other than being in Washington waiting for 

last-minute legislation to be introduced and 

voted on, Members of Congress have additional responsibilities and other obligations to 

their constituents that are just as important. 

This week, I have been in my district meeting 

with my constituents on various issues including ongoing international conflicts. 

I am disappointed and appalled that Democratic leadership has treated American taxpayer money in such an irresponsible manner. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time 

for debate has expired. 

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. LATOURETTE

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I 

have an amendment at the desk that I 

am offering with my good friend AL

GREEN of Texas made in order under 

the rule. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Clerk will designate the amendment. 

The text of the amendment is as follows: 

Amendment printed in House Report 110– 

922 offered by Mr. LATOURETTE: 

SEC.lNEW LENDING THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO 

TARP INVESTMENTS AND ASSISTANCE. 

Section 7(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ( U.S.C. 1817(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(12) LENDING INCREASES ATTRIBUTABLE TO

INVESTMENT OR OTHER ASSISTANCE UNDER THE

TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF PROGRAM.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each report of condition 

filed pursuant to this subsection by an insured depository institution which received 

an investment or other assistance under the 

Troubled Assets Relief Program established 

by the Emergency Economic Stabilization 

Act of 2008 or section 136(d) of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 shall 

report the amount of any increase in new 

lending in the period covered by such report 

(or the amount of any reduction in any decrease in new lending) that is attributable to 

such investment or assistance, to the extent 

possible. 

‘‘(B) ALTERNATIVE MEASURE.—If an insured 

depository institution that is subject to subparagraph (A) cannot accurately quantify 

the effect that an investment or other assistance under such Troubled Assets Relief Program has had on new lending by the institution, the insured depository institution shall 

report the total amount of the increase in 

new lending, if any, in the period covered by 

such report.’’ 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1534, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATOURETTE) 

and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, in very shaky opposition, I 

start out claiming the time, but I am 

open minded on the subject, so I claim 

the 5 minutes. 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10933 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be recognized in opposition for 5 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Ohio. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank the Chair 

for his wholehearted opposition to the 

amendment. 

Basically a couple things. I want to 

thank the chairwoman of the Rules 

Committee, Ms. SLAUGHTER, for making this rule in order and give a shout 

out to BETTY SUTTON, my fellow Ohioan who is on the committee that advocated that this be made in order. 

And I don’t know if the Speaker is still 

on the floor, but, Madam Speaker, you 

can now take credit that this was the 

only amendment offered. It’s made in 

order. You have a complete open rule 

on this piece of legislation; so it’s a 

day of celebration. 

The way this came about is to date 

we have given away about $335 billion 

of TARP money, a bill that I opposed 

along with a number of my colleagues, 

and the intended purpose doesn’t appear to have happened. People aren’t 

being kept in their homes. People have 

to have perfect credit scores to buy a 

car, and they’re using the funds, some 

banks, to buy other banks. In Cleveland, PNC will use $7 billion to buy National City Bank. 

This amendment is simple. Chairman 

FRANK has had excellent oversight 

hearings, but the fact of the matter is 

the answer we are getting from Treasury is there’s no way to track this, and 

they say the bankers come in and say, 

sure, we’re going to spend the money 

the way we are supposed to, but nobody 

knows. It’s inconceivable to me that 

we can’t figure out where the money is 

going and they can’t be made to certify 

that they’re spending it for what we 

thought they would spend it for. So I 

called Chairman FRANK, and I said can 

we get this done? And he said, well, 

find AL GREEN. And I called AL GREEN, 

and we worked together on a standalone bill. This may be the last day 

we’re going to be here until the next 

administration comes in. I think we 

need to know where the 335 went before 

January 20. 

So knowing this legislation was coming up, we drafted an amendment, AL

GREEN and I, and we are going to introduce a stand-alone bill tomorrow, I 

guess. But it basically says that if 

you’ve taken $400 billion of TARP 

money, you have to certify on your 

quarterly report that you’ve engaged 

in new lending and show us how you’ve 

done it and if not, why not. And it’s a 

reasonable amendment. I urge support. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, as evidence of my open-mindedness here and being willing to listen, 

I will yield 2 minutes to our very able 

committee colleague and cosponsor of 

this amendment, Mr. GREEN. 

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for yielding. And I especially thank the chairman for the outstanding job that he’s done on the 

broader bill. I thank Mr. LATOURETTE

for the service that he has rendered 

with reference to putting this amendment together. While I take a small 

amount of assurance in knowing that I 

may have been there, it was really his 

stalwart work that made the difference 

in getting the amendment through. 

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to say 

that this amendment is one that 

should please persons on both sides of 

the aisle. Today in the Financial Services hearing there was much talk about 

transparency and talk of how we 

should be able to acquire the empirical 

evidence to ascertain whether or not 

new lending is taking place. This piece 

of legislation, this amendment, will, in 

fact, allow us to get some idea as to 

what’s happening with the money as it 

relates to transparency. 

So I thank the chairman for allowing 

this opportunity to speak on the 

amendment, and I thank Mr. 

LATOURETTE for his outstanding work 

on the amendment. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, at 

this time before I yield to my next 

speaker, I just want to say that Mr. 

GREEN is hiding his light under a bushel basket. His assistance in the drafting of not only this amendment but 

also the stand-alone legislation was invaluable, and I appreciate Chairman 

FRANK putting the two of us together. 

Mr. Speaker, at this time it’s my 

pleasure to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman KUCINICH. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

support of the LaTourette amendment. 

Transparency is vital to the success 

of the congressional action with the 

TARP, and we know that when Congress intended to get help for consumers, unless you have transparency, 

you don’t know if consumers are actually going to be helped. The 

LaTourette amendment resolves that 

question. I thank him for introducing 

it, and I urge its approval. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, at 

this time it’s my pleasure to yield 30 

seconds to the distinguished ranking 

member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. 

b 2000 

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, in the 

capital injection program, the bank 

signed a statement that they will use 

the money for the purpose intended, 

and that purpose is to lend. This 

amendment will give an assist to that. 

They are not lending. They should 

lend. They were given money to lend. 

They have signed a document that they 

will lend, and this will go a long way 

towards ensuring that. So I rise in support of the amendment. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I don’t have any 

further speakers, and I would just yield 

myself the balance of the time and indicate that I think it’s a good amendment. 

Listen, we were told, even though I 

didn’t support the TARP Program, we 

were told, it was advertised as this 

money was going to free up credit, free 

up interbank lending, help people buy 

cars, help people who are subject to 

foreclosure stay in their homes. Just 

today, on the front page or in the business section of the Wall Street Journal, 

one of the companies that has received 

billions of dollars is now engaged in 

about $10 billion of speculative losses 

rather than doing the intended purpose. 

All this amendment says is until the 

Obama administration gets in place, in 

fact, they have to file, on their report, 

on December 30, that if they took 

money, if they wanted to participate— 

nobody put a gun at their head and said 

you have to participate—but if you 

participate in the program, and you 

take billions of dollars from the taxpayer, you have to demonstrate that 

you are engaged in new lending. That’s 

all there is to it. 

In the brief amount of time that I 

have left, I would just ask the chairman a procedural question. 

I think it’s a good oversight vote 

that every Member would want to be 

recorded on. I am mindful of people 

wanting to catch airplanes. Do you 

think we should have a recorded vote 

on this or not? 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the 

gentleman will yield, yes, we will have 

a recorded vote on this. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Perfect. 

I yield back the balance of my time, 

urge support of the amendment and 

thank Mr. GREEN for his help. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I believe I have 3 minutes remaining? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 31⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I 

intend to use the 31⁄2 minutes to speak 

enthusiastically for this amendment 

now for a couple of reasons. 

First, the merits of the amendment. 

We were told by the Treasury Department that they would get more lending 

done. Some people unfairly said that 

the bill we passed didn’t have good 

oversight. It had a number of pieces of 

oversight, including the best oversight 

you can have in this Federal Government, the Government Accountability 

Office, an outstanding organization. 

We worked with them, and they were 

there on the first day of this program. 

We had a briefing with them. They 

have given us a report, and the report 

said that Treasury was not doing a 

good job of seeing whether the people 

who received the capital injections 

were, in turn, lending. 

We heard that anecdotally, we got a 

confirmation that Treasury wasn’t 

measuring. What particularly distressed me was Treasury didn’t say, 

well, you don’t understand how hard it 

is. Treasury said, you are right, we are 

not going to try, that we will judge the 

overall success of the program without 

doing that. 

Now, I will give Mr. Kashkari credit. 

Today, at a hearing we held—and we 

called a hearing just to deal with this 

H10934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

issue—he indicated they now do plan to 

do it. But I think given the initial reluctance, this amendment is very important. 

For Members who voted for the 

TARP and want to see that vote vindicated, you need to vote for this amendment, because it makes it valid. But 

there is one other thing you have to do. 

Let me ask you another procedural 

question. This is the last train out of 

the legislative station this year. 

So I would advise Members, if you believe that we need to put pressure on 

the Treasury to have the TARP do 

more lending, you have to do two 

things. You have to vote for the 

LaTourette amendment, but then you 

have to vote for the underlying bill. 

Because I would advise Members, if you 

vote for the LaTourette amendment, 

and you then vote against the bill, Mr. 

Speaker, I would caution Members 

going back to their districts and taking credit for having voted for an 

amendment into a vehicle which they 

then crashed into the sea. 

So the only way the LaTourette 

amendment will have any effect, and I 

hope it will have effect because it’s important, is if the bill to which it is 

about to be attached passes. 

So I congratulate the gentleman on 

an extraordinary amendment. I am envious that I didn’t think of this strategy to help get the bill passed, but I 

will acknowledge my strategic better 

in this case. That may sound ironic, 

but it’s the case. 

If you vote for the LaTourette 

amendment—which I think does a very 

important job of improving the 

TARP—and you then vote against this 

bill, you have completely and totally 

negated it. 

Now you may, Mr. Speaker, have 

Members here who find it of value to be 

on both sides of this issue, to take 

credit for improving the TARP in theory, but disimproving it in practice, 

but I would hope that most of us would 

not want to be in that position. So I 

urge Members to vote for this, and having voted for this important thing, the 

gentleman is right, the gentleman from 

Ohio, he did put it in a separate bill. 

But that separate bill is not going anywhere. 

There will be no further legislative 

work. So if you believe that we need to 

have the banks who have not been 

lending, and who have received part of 

the TARP, relend, vote for the amendment, and vote for the underlying bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1534, the previous question is ordered on the bill 

and on the amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATOURETTE). 

The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentleman from Ohio. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 403, noes 0, 

answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting 29, as 

follows: 

[Roll No. 689] 

AYES—403 

Abercrombie 

Ackerman 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Allen 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Baca 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Baird 

Baldwin 

Barrett (SC) 

Barrow 

Bartlett (MD) 

Barton (TX) 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Berry 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Blumenauer 

Blunt 

Boehner 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boozman 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boucher 

Boustany 

Boyd (FL) 

Boyda (KS) 

Brady (PA) 

Brady (TX) 

Braley (IA) 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (SC) 

Brown, Corrine 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Butterfield 

Buyer 

Calvert 

Camp (MI) 

Cannon 

Cantor 

Capito 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson 

Carter 

Castle 

Castor 

Cazayoux 

Chabot 

Chandler 

Childers 

Clarke 

Clay 

Clyburn 

Coble 

Cohen 

Cole (OK) 

Conaway 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costello 

Courtney 

Cramer 

Crenshaw 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

Cummings 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis (KY) 

Davis, David 

Davis, Lincoln 

Deal (GA) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly 

Doyle 

Drake 

Dreier 

Duncan 

Edwards (MD) 

Edwards (TX) 

Ehlers 

Ellsworth 

Emerson 

Engel 

English (PA) 

Eshoo 

Etheridge 

Fallin 

Farr 

Fattah 

Feeney 

Ferguson 

Filner 

Flake 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Fossella 

Foster 

Foxx 

Frank (MA) 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Fudge 

Gallegly 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Giffords 

Gillibrand 

Gingrey 

Gohmert 

Gonzalez 

Goode 

Goodlatte 

Granger 

Graves 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Hall (NY) 

Hall (TX) 

Hare 

Harman 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayes 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herseth Sandlin 

Higgins 

Hill 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hobson 

Hodes 

Hoekstra 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Hulshof 

Hunter 

Inglis (SC) 

Inslee 

Israel 

Issa 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson-Lee 

(TX) 

Jefferson 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones (NC) 

Jordan 

Kagen 

Kanjorski 

Kaptur 

Kennedy 

Kildee 

Kilpatrick 

Kind 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kirk 

Klein (FL) 

Kline (MN) 

Knollenberg 

Kucinich 

LaHood 

Lamborn 

Lampson 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lee 

Levin 

Lewis (CA) 

Lewis (GA) 

Lewis (KY) 

Linder 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Lucas 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Mack 

Mahoney (FL) 

Maloney (NY) 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Markey 

Marshall 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCaul (TX) 

McCollum (MN) 

McCotter 

McCrery 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

McNulty 

Meek (FL) 

Meeks (NY) 

Melancon 

Mica 

Michaud 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Mitchell 

Mollohan 

Moore (KS) 

Moore (WI) 

Moran (KS) 

Moran (VA) 

Murphy (CT) 

Murphy, Patrick 

Murphy, Tim 

Murtha 

Musgrave 

Myrick 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal (MA) 

Neugebauer 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Olver 

Ortiz 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor 

Paul 

Payne 

Pearce 

Pence 

Perlmutter 

Peterson (MN) 

Petri 

Pickering 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe 

Pomeroy 

Porter 

Price (GA) 

Price (NC) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Rahall 

Ramstad 

Rangel 

Regula 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Reyes 

Reynolds 

Richardson 

Rodriguez 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross 

Rothman 

Roybal-Allard 

Royce 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Ryan (WI) 

Salazar 

Sali 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Scalise 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schmidt 

Schwartz 

Scott (GA) 

Scott (VA) 

Serrano 

Sessions 

Sestak 

Shadegg 

Shays 

Shea-Porter 

Sherman 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Sires 

Skelton 

Slaughter 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Smith (WA) 

Solis 

Souder 

Space 

Speier 

Spratt 

Stark 

Stearns 

Stupak 

Sullivan 

Sutton 

Tanner 

Tauscher 

Taylor 

Terry 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Thornberry 

Tiahrt 

Tiberi 

Tierney 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Turner 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Upton 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walden (OR) 

Walsh (NY) 

Walz (MN) 

Wamp 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch (VT) 

Weller 

Westmoreland 

Wexler 

Whitfield (KY) 

Wilson (NM) 

Wilson (OH) 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman (VA) 

Wolf 

Woolsey 

Wu 

Yarmuth 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1 

Campbell (CA) 

NOT VOTING—29 

Cleaver 

Costa 

Cubin 

Delahunt 

Doolittle 

Ellison 

Emanuel 

Everett 

Gilchrest 

Gordon 

Gutierrez 

Hastings (FL) 

Hooley 

Johnson, E. B. 

Keller 

Kuhl (NY) 

Miller, Gary 

Nunes 

Peterson (PA) 

Pryce (OH) 

Renzi 

Rohrabacher 

Saxton 

Sensenbrenner 

Snyder 

Tancredo 

Walberg 

Watson 

Weldon (FL) 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this vote. 

b 2027 

Mr. FLAKE changed his vote from 

‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’ 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the engrossment and 

third reading of the bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 

and read a third time, and was read the 

third time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the bill. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I demand 

a recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 237, noes 170, 

answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting 26, as 

follows: 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10935 

[Roll No. 690] 

AYES—237 

Abercrombie 

Ackerman 

Allen 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Baca 

Baird 

Baldwin 

Barrow 

Barton (TX) 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Berry 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boucher 

Boyda (KS) 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown, Corrine 

Buyer 

Camp (MI) 

Capito 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson 

Castle 

Castor 

Cazayoux 

Chandler 

Clarke 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Conyers 

Costello 

Courtney 

Cramer 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis, Lincoln 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly 

Doyle 

Edwards (MD) 

Edwards (TX) 

Ehlers 

Ellsworth 

Emerson 

Engel 

English (PA) 

Eshoo 

Etheridge 

Farr 

Fattah 

Foster 

Frank (MA) 

Frelinghuysen 

Fudge 

Gillibrand 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Hall (NY) 

Hare 

Harman 

Higgins 

Hill 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hodes 

Hoekstra 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Hunter 

Inslee 

Israel 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson-Lee 

(TX) 

Jefferson 

Johnson (GA) 

Kanjorski 

Kaptur 

Kennedy 

Kildee 

Kilpatrick 

Kind 

King (NY) 

Klein (FL) 

Knollenberg 

Kucinich 

LaHood 

Lampson 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

LaTourette 

Lee 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lewis (KY) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Lynch 

Mahoney (FL) 

Maloney (NY) 

Manzullo 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum (MN) 

McCotter 

McCrery 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McHugh 

McNerney 

McNulty 

Meek (FL) 

Meeks (NY) 

Melancon 

Michaud 

Miller (MI) 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Mollohan 

Moore (KS) 

Moore (WI) 

Moran (VA) 

Murphy (CT) 

Murphy, Patrick 

Murphy, Tim 

Murtha 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal (MA) 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Olver 

Ortiz 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor 

Payne 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Pomeroy 

Porter 

Price (NC) 

Ramstad 

Rangel 

Regula 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Rogers (MI) 

Ross 

Rothman 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Ryan (WI) 

Salazar 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schwartz 

Scott (GA) 

Scott (VA) 

Serrano 

Sestak 

Shea-Porter 

Sherman 

Sires 

Skelton 

Slaughter 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (WA) 

Solis 

Souder 

Space 

Speier 

Spratt 

Stupak 

Sutton 

Tanner 

Tauscher 

Taylor 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Upton 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walsh (NY) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch (VT) 

Wexler 

Wilson (OH) 

Woolsey 

Wu 

Yarmuth 

Young (AK) 

NOES—170 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barrett (SC) 

Bartlett (MD) 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Blunt 

Boehner 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boozman 

Boustany 

Boyd (FL) 

Brady (TX) 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (SC) 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Butterfield 

Calvert 

Cannon 

Cantor 

Cardoza 

Carter 

Chabot 

Childers 

Coble 

Cole (OK) 

Conaway 

Cooper 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (KY) 

Davis, David 

Deal (GA) 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Drake 

Dreier 

Duncan 

Fallin 

Feeney 

Ferguson 

Filner 

Flake 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Fossella 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Gallegly 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Giffords 

Gingrey 

Gohmert 

Goode 

Goodlatte 

Granger 

Graves 

Hall (TX) 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayes 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herseth Sandlin 

Hobson 

Hulshof 

Inglis (SC) 

Issa 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones (NC) 

Jordan 

Kagen 

King (IA) 

Kingston 

Kirk 

Kline (MN) 

Lamborn 

Latham 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

Linder 

LoBiondo 

Lucas 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Marchant 

Marshall 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul (TX) 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Mitchell 

Moran (KS) 

Musgrave 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Paul 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson (MN) 

Petri 

Pickering 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe 

Price (GA) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Rahall 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Reynolds 

Rodriguez 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Royce 

Sali 

Saxton 

Scalise 

Schmidt 

Sessions 

Shadegg 

Shays 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (TX) 

Stark 

Stearns 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thornberry 

Tiahrt 

Tiberi 

Turner 

Walden (OR) 

Walz (MN) 

Wamp 

Weller 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield (KY) 

Wilson (NM) 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman (VA) 

Wolf 

Young (FL) 

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1 

Campbell (CA) 

NOT VOTING—26 

Costa 

Cubin 

Delahunt 

Doolittle 

Ellison 

Emanuel 

Everett 

Gilchrest 

Gordon 

Gutierrez 

Hastings (FL) 

Hooley 

Johnson, E. B. 

Keller 

Kuhl (NY) 

Miller, Gary 

Peterson (PA) 

Pryce (OH) 

Renzi 

Rohrabacher 

Sensenbrenner 

Snyder 

Tancredo 

Walberg 

Watson 

Weldon (FL) 

b 2046 

So the bill was passed. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE 

A message from the Senate by Ms. 

Curtis, one of its clerks, announced 

that the Senate has passed without 

amendment bills of the House of the 

following titles: 

H.R. 6184. An act to provide for a program 

for circulating quarter dollar coins that are 

emblematic of a national park or other national site in each State, the District of Columbia, and each territory of the United 

States, and for other purposes. 

H.R. 7311. An act to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 

to enhance measures to combat trafficking 

in persons, and for other purposes. 

The message also announced that the 

Senate has passed a bill and a Joint 

Resolution of the following titles in 

which the concurrence of the House is 

requested: 

S. 3731. An act to amend the Emergency 

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division 

A of Public Law 110–343) to provide the Special Inspector General with additional authorities and responsibilities, and for other 

purposes. 

S.J. Res. 46. Joint resolution ensuring that 

the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State are 

those which were in effect on January 1, 2007. 

The message also announced that 

pursuant to Public Law 101–549, the 

Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, appoints the following individuals 

to the Board of Directors of the Mickey 

Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center: 

Jane Delgado, of the District of Columbia. 

John Hiatt, of Nevada. 

f 

WORKER, RETIREE, AND 

EMPLOYER RECOVERY ACT OF 2008 

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Committees on Ways and Means and Education 

and Labor be discharged from further 

consideration of the bill (H.R. 7327) to 

make technical corrections related to 

the Pension Protection Act of 2006, and 

for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

LAMPSON). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Dakota? 

There was no objection. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 7327 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as 

the ‘‘Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

TITLE I—TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATED TO THE PENSION PROTECTION 

ACT OF 2006 

Sec. 100. References in title. 

Subtitle A—Technical Corrections Related 

to the Pension Protection Act of 2006 

Sec. 101. Amendments related to Title I. 

Sec. 102. Amendments related to title II. 

Sec. 103. Amendments related to title III. 

Sec. 104. Amendments related to title IV. 

Sec. 105. Amendments related to title V. 

Sec. 106. Amendments related to title VI. 

Sec. 107. Amendments related to title VII. 

Sec. 108. Amendments related to title VIII. 

Sec. 109. Amendments related to title IX. 

Sec. 110. Amendments related to title X. 

Sec. 111. Amendments related to title XI. 

Sec. 112. Effective date. 

Subtitle B—Other Provisions 

Sec. 121. Amendments Related to Sections 

102 and 112 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. 

Sec. 122. Modification of interest rate assumption required with respect 

to certain small employer 

plans. 

Sec. 123. Determination of market rate of 

return for governmental plans. 

Sec. 124. Treatment of certain reimbursements from governmental plans 

for medical care. 

Sec. 125. Rollover of amounts received in 

airline carrier bankruptcy to 

Roth IRAs.