December 11, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10895 

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY CRISIS 

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand 

to again address the key issue before us 

that affects so many Americans, American families, and indeed all of us, 

through our economy: the proposed 

U.S. auto industry bailout. 

Yesterday, I stood here and announced two conclusions I was driven 

to reach. First, I would have to strongly oppose the bailout package in its 

present form because I don’t think it 

demands the fundamental restructuring it will take for those companies 

to survive. Second, because of that 

very point, I would use every procedural tool available to block, stop, and 

delay that package from passing into 

law. 

I, again, reached those conclusions. I 

restate that commitment for one very 

simple, very compelling reason—because so much is at stake; because we 

need to get it right; because millions of 

individual workers and families, and 

indeed all of us, through our economy, 

will suffer the consequences of our not 

taking appropriate action. 

Again, let me be clear, I am not trying to block this package in spite of job 

losses that would occur if these companies went down. I am trying to block 

this package because of that, in light 

of that, because this package doesn’t 

demand the fundamental core restructuring that is absolutely necessary for 

these companies to survive. 

This package puts those companies 

down a road where I believe that is unlikely to ever happen. It would throw a 

lot of taxpayer dollars at the problem 

to buy time, but it doesn’t change the 

endgame, in my opinion. 

Let me also make clear, having said 

all that, I am not for doing nothing. I 

am not for going home and forgetting 

about this and walking away. This is a 

serious crisis we must address. I am for 

doing something, but the right thing, 

the right way, something that will ensure, demand the fundamental core restructuring it will take for these American companies to survive. 

What do I mean by that? I could support a few alternatives. Let me outline 

two specific alternatives that are being 

worked on now, that have been developed, that are being discussed by many 

Members that I could support. First of 

all, I could certainly support a strong, 

comprehensive alternative being developed by Senator BOB CORKER of Tennessee and others. That proposal 

wouldn’t throw $14 billion at the company before any outline of a restructuring plan is agreed to. It would say: 

No, we need to agree and nail down and 

ensure some of those fundamentals 

now, before any taxpayer dollars go to 

those companies. 

What are those fundamentals? Senator CORKER outlines four that I agree 

are at the core of the issue and must be 

nailed down before any taxpayer dollars should go to those companies. 

First, his proposal would require that 

participating companies reduce their 

outstanding debt obligations by at 

least two-thirds by forcing the companies’ bondholders to accept an equity 

swap or debt for debt and equity swap— 

in other words, for the taxpayer dollars 

we would be sending to those companies not to boost the take, not to boost 

the value of bonds for those bondholders, but for the bondholders to contribute something up front to reduce 

the debt of the companies. That is crucial because right now those companies, particularly GM, are drowning 

under unbelievable debt, and that alleged loan would be on top of that. So 

that is crucial. 

Second, we would agree up front that 

the companies would become more 

competitive by requiring that all-in 

labor costs and work rules would be 

immediately on par with other 

automaking companies such as Nissan, 

Toyota, and Honda. Obviously, a major 

source of the uncompetitiveness of the 

three U.S. automakers is their labor 

costs. They cannot possibly compete in 

this global marketplace when their 

costs are way, way higher, 80 percent 

higher than competitors such as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. This aspect of 

the Corker plan would ensure that is 

nailed down up front. 

Third, the legislation would require 

that changes in payments to the UAW 

VEBA accounts occur to help the companies’ cash flow, specifically that at 

least half of any scheduled payments 

be made in stock. There again, it would 

reinforce the sense that the workers 

and the union have a real stake in all 

of this working and in those companies 

surviving. 

Fourth, any compensation, outside of 

customary severance pay, that goes 

now to workers who have been fired or 

laid off or furloughed would end. Again, 

a major cost to these U.S. companies, a 

major source of their uncompetitiveness is they are paying lots of 

money, tens of millions or billions of 

dollars for people not to work, for people not to work. 

That is a plan I could support. That 

is not putting the cart before the 

horse. That is getting things in the 

right order, nailing down that essential 

restructuring now before any taxpayer 

dollars go out the door. 

A second alternative I could support 

would involve a formal bankruptcy 

process. A lot of folks make the argument that bankruptcy is not an option, 

that consumers will never buy a car of 

a company in bankruptcy; they don’t 

know if the warranty will be there or 

be good 6 months or a year from now. 

We can fix that problem. We can address that problem with appropriate 

limited Government assistance and 

participation in the formal bankruptcy. 

Specifically, I would support a plan 

whereby the Government could play 

that role in two limited, specific ways: 

one, backing up the warranty obligations of the companies with the full 

faith and credit of the U.S. Government so consumers can retain that 

confidence and, two, providing debtorin-possession financing if that is necessary. I believe the Government playing that crucial role, or something 

akin to that, can make a traditional 

bankruptcy process work. 

Again, Mr. President, I stand before 

you and my colleagues in the Senate— 

indeed, all the American people—to 

urge us to adopt one of those alternative paths, to urge us to think outside the tiny constricted box folks have 

tried to put us into and find a third 

way, a better way which does exist. 

There are folks who argue it is this or 

bust. Quite frankly, that is baseless 

fear mongering. There is another way. 

There is a third path and a better way. 

I have outlined two just in the last few 

minutes. Let’s choose that better path. 

Let’s do the responsible thing. Let’s demand the fundamental core restructuring it will take for these companies 

to survive. And let’s demand it and nail 

it down now, not throw billions of taxpayers’ dollars at them simply upon 

the request that they sit down to begin 

to think about such restructuring. 

That is the plan before us. That is unreasonable. That is not an appropriate 

role for the taxpayers. But these two 

alternatives I outlined would be far different, would demand and ensure that 

core fundamental restructuring happens. 

Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, 

to join me in voting no on the important vote tomorrow morning on the 

present plan and to say yes to real restructuring, fundamental core restructuring that can save a maximum number of these jobs in America. 

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, 

these are, indeed, turbulent times for 

the U.S. economy. Over the past several months, Americans have seen 

giant companies fail, significant job 

losses, and, after unprecedented problems in the credit markets, the frightening prospect of total disarray within 

our Nation’s mainstream economy. 

The crisis in the credit markets came 

at us quickly. We were told that urgent 

Government action was needed in order 

to shore up the broader economy and 

that failure to act would lead to a complete collapse of consumer credit, the 

very lifeblood of our Nation’s economy. 

Under ordinary circumstances, I would 

have opposed such a measure. Government intervention in the marketplace, 

S10896 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 11, 2008 

frankly, cuts against all my ordinary 

impulses. But this was not an ordinary 

event. I and many others believed that 

extraordinary action was needed to 

protect millions of ordinary Americans 

from the colossal and far-reaching mistakes of a few. And action was taken. 

The systemic breakdown some envisioned has not occurred. So there is 

reason to believe the medicine has had 

some effect. But on the whole, the 

overall economy continues to struggle. 

Some industries have been hit harder 

than others, and one of them certainly 

is the auto industry. 

The problems in the auto industry 

have been long in the making. But last 

month the situation grew so dire that 

American automobile makers came to 

Washington with an urgent appeal for 

Federal help. Over the past few weeks, 

lawmakers have taken the time to examine the problems of these companies 

and the solutions that have been proposed. Now the American taxpayers are 

being asked to put their money behind 

a plan that is aimed at helping these 

companies survive. 

Republicans received that plan late 

yesterday morning, about this time 

yesterday. We reviewed it closely to 

see if it meets the criteria I have laid 

out repeatedly for taxpayer protections 

and for an effective strategy for securing the long-term viability of these 

companies. In the end, I concluded that 

it does not. 

In some ways, the proposal that was 

worked out by the White House and 

congressional Democrats appears 

tough. It calls on struggling auto companies and auto workers to make the 

sort of sacrifices they have not been 

accustomed to making in the past. It 

also includes time limits as a way of 

hastening necessary reforms. But in reality, this proposal is not nearly tough 

enough. A primary weakness relates to 

the so-called car czar who has nearly 

unlimited power to allocate taxpayer 

dollars but limited ability to force the 

kinds of tough concessions long-term 

viability would require. Another problem lies outside the proposal itself, and 

here I am referring to the type of Government action that is being contemplated. 

Somewhat lost in the recent debate 

over the auto industry is the fundamental difference between it and the financial rescue plan Congress approved 

in October. While that plan was intended to rescue the entire economy, 

this one is intended to save a single industry. That plan was intended to help 

everyone from small business owners 

to college students, and every lawmaker who voted for it acted in the belief that is exactly what it would do. A 

failure to appreciate this distinction 

has caused a number of other industries and even a number of municipalities across the country to prepare their 

own proposals for Government rescue, 

as all Americans weather the tough 

economy. It has also created the impression in some minds that the Federal Government is picking favorites 

and that favorite businesses get help 

while others do not. A lot of struggling 

Americans are asking where their bailout is. They wonder why one business 

would get support over another. When 

it comes to the auto industry, many 

Republicans in Congress have asked 

these same questions. 

There are many principled reasons to 

oppose this bill. But the simplest one is 

also the best—a government big 

enough to give us everything we want 

is a government big enough to take everything we have. This is as true for individuals as it is for business. It is the 

primary principle upon which American industry, including the auto industry, was built. Even in turbulent 

moments such as this—perhaps especially at moments such as this—it is a 

principle worth defending. 

Now, some argue the effects of the 

auto industry collapse would be too 

acute and far-reaching for an already 

struggling economy to bear. This is impossible to know. Even if we grant that 

these companies would fail without 

taxpayer help, we would still have to 

ask ourselves whether the proposal before us achieves the goal everyone 

claims to embrace; namely, the longterm viability of ailing car companies. 

In my view, it does not. 

I have already enumerated some of 

the weaknesses in the plan. But in the 

end, its greatest single flaw is it promises taxpayer money today for reforms 

that may or may not come tomorrow. 

We would not be serving the American 

taxpayer well if we spent their hardearned money without knowing with 

certainty that their investment would 

result in stronger, leaner automobile 

companies that would not need additional taxpayer help a few months or 

weeks down the road. We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure. 

Now, all Americans, including myself, are worried about the future of 

our Nation’s automakers. These companies have a venerable place in the 

story of modern America. They continue to provide hundreds of thousands 

of jobs across the country, including 

50,000 auto-related jobs in my home 

State of Kentucky. But many Americans are also worried about the prospect of the Government intervening on 

behalf of some industries and not intervening on behalf of others, especially 

when there is no guarantee—no guarantee—that the interventions will 

work. They wonder when the spending 

stops. If I were to vote in favor of this 

bill, I would not have a very good answer for them. 

The best route for the long-term viability of ailing car companies may be a 

rocky one. Government help is not the 

only option. It is not even the best option. Long-term viability is still possible, but it is only possible if these 

companies are forced to make the 

tough choices necessary for their survival. 

My colleague, Senator CORKER, has 

proposed an amendment that would go 

a long way toward improving this bill. 

In keeping with the principles I have 

outlined before in these comments this 

morning, the Corker amendment does 

not just encourage reform—it doesn’t 

just encourage reform—it requires reform. It does so with crucial specificity. First, participating companies 

would be required to reduce their outstanding debt by at least two-thirds 

through an equity swap with bondholders. The Corker amendment also 

requires that labor cost at participating companies be brought on par 

with companies such as Nissan, Toyota—which I also have in my State— 

and Honda, not tomorrow but immediately because it is delusional to 

think a company which spends $71 per 

labor hour could compete with a company in the same industry that spends 

$49 per labor hour. 

The Corker amendment would improve the liquidity and cash flow of 

automakers by requiring that a portion 

of the payments made to the union accounts consist of company stock. Finally, the Corker amendment would require participating companies to file 

for chapter 11 reorganization if any of 

these conditions—if any of these conditions—aren’t met by a fixed date. 

The Corker amendment forces necessary reforms, holds companies accountable, and assures taxpayers that 

these companies will not be back for 

more. If legislative action were necessary, the Corker proposal would 

make many much needed and dramatic 

improvements to the underlying bill. 

I, similar to all my colleagues, want 

the U.S. auto industry not only to survive but to thrive. By cutting costs, 

streamlining production, increasing 

fuel efficiency, and investing in new 

technologies and attractive, more competitive designs, American auto companies will once again make cars people all over the world will want to buy. 

Then, Americans would be able to say, 

again, with pride that our cars are the 

best. 

In addition, protecting the taxpayer 

is a goal Republicans have been fighting hard for in this debate, and in my 

view it is a goal that is well worth our 

efforts. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is 

the order? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in 

morning business, with a 10-minute 

time limit. There is no unanimous consent request on the order of speakers. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have to 

say we are now here, approaching 

Christmas, in a deepening recession. On 

December 1, the National Bureau of 

Economic Research said that, in fact, 

the recession had begun in December 

2007. 

December 11, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10897 

How many jobs have been lost in the 

last year? Almost 2 million jobs have 

been lost in the last year. So we are 

here today on the heels of a loss of 2 

million jobs. The unemployment rate 

stands at 6.7 percent, and it is growing. 

In my State, it is 8.2 percent. Today, 

the Labor Department reported that 

initial applications for jobless benefits 

rose to 573,000, the highest number in 26 

years. 

So when I hear someone come to the 

floor and say: Gee, I didn’t get all the 

language until a couple days ago and 

this is a problem; you know, sit down 

and read the language. We cannot afford to say we are not going to do 

something and act to turn around this 

recession because somebody didn’t 

have the time to read the bill. 

Consumer confidence has plunged to 

its lowest level since the survey began 

in 1967. Gross domestic product has 

dipped, personal spending decreased 3.7 

percent in the third quarter, and according to the CBO—the Congressional 

Budget Office—American workers lost 

more than $2 trillion over 15 months as 

the stock market decline devastated 

retirement accounts. Let me say that 

again. American workers lost more 

than $2 trillion over 15 months as the 

stock market decline devastated retirement savings accounts. So we are 

dealing with a crisis. 

Compared to a year ago, U.S. foreclosure filings increased 71 percent in 

the third quarter. The Institute for 

Supply Management Index, which is a 

key gauge of U.S. manufacturing activity, fell to a 26-year low in November. 

Manufacturing activity fell to a 26-year 

low in November. Home prices, tracked 

by S&P’s 20-city housing index, 

dropped 17.4 percent in September. 

That is a record—the fastest decline on 

record. Do you hear what I am saying? 

The job losses, the jobless claims, the 

foreclosures, the stock market, everything is going in the wrong direction. 

For people who don’t know what the 

fundamentals of the economy mean, 

that is the fundamentals of the economy. That is the fundamentals—unemployment, housing prices, stock market, retirement incomes. 

Construction spending fell by 1.2 percent in October, much more than what 

was expected—another fundamental of 

the economy. Construction of singlefamily homes plunged 4.6 percent from 

September. Sales at the wholesale level 

plunged by 4.1 percent in October. That 

is nationwide. 

My State of California trails only 

Michigan in the total number of autorelated jobs. In fact, there are nearly 

200,000 Californians employed by auto 

dealers, manufacturers, and wholesalers whose livelihoods are at stake. 

At the Vehicle Accessory Center in 

Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 50 workers 

manufacture auto parts for GM cars. 

The general manager, Russell Hoyt, 

writes that without a bridge loan to 

the Big Three, ‘‘we run the risk of losing all of the gains we’ve made over the 

years to make our company more competitive and to build new technologies 

and cars that will benefit consumers 

and improve our nation’s energy security.’’ 

Gina Underwood, the controller of a 

Saturn dealership that employs 48 people in Ontario, CA, wrote to me about 

the impact the credit market is having 

on her business. 

She says ‘‘the potential trickle down 

into my community borders on catastrophic.’’ She adds that ‘‘helping our 

industry in the short-term will have a 

much lower cost than addressing the 

effects of a failed industry in the midst 

of an economic turnaround.’’ 

The Los Angeles Federation of Labor 

says the decline in the auto industry is 

‘‘responsible for nearly 11 percent of 

California’s job loss in the past year. It 

has also robbed millions of dollars from 

state and local treasuries that are responsible for funding some of our most 

crucial public services.’’ 

The California chapter of the United 

Auto Workers writes that ‘‘these loans 

will enable domestic auto companies to 

continue operations and will avoid putting thousands of people out of work.’’ 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the 

California recession figures. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

CALIFORNIA RECESSION FIGURES

In California, the unemployment rate is at 

8.2 percent—the highest in 14 years. 

California has lost 101,000 jobs over the 

past year and 487,000 more people were looking for work in October than were doing so a 

year ago. 

1.5 million Californians are out of work. 

The University of the Pacific Business 

Forecasting Center has predicted that the 

state’s unemployment rate will peak at 9.6 

percent the end of next year and won’t dip 

below 9 percent until 2011. 

Through the first three quarters of 2008, 

more than 189,000 California homes were lost 

to foreclosure. 

The number of California homes in foreclosure totaled 79,511 in the third quarter— 

more than triple last year’s number. 

In cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, 

and San Diego, housing prices have declined 

more than 25 percent. 

In October 51 percent of homes sold in 

Southern California were in foreclosures, 

compared to 16 percent the year before. 

A recent report stated that over 27 percent 

of California homeowners are already ‘‘underwater,’’ or have negative equity in their 

home. 

The Joint Economic Committee estimates 

that California state-wide home prices will 

fall 17 percent between 2007 and 2009, resulting in a net loss of over 1 trillion in housing 

wealth. 

The state budget shortfall for next year 

could reach $28 billion. 

Mrs. BOXER. Suffice it to say that 

1.5 million Californians are out of 

work, and in the third quarter we had 

79,000 foreclosures, more than triple 

last year’s numbers. We have a State 

budget crisis, some of it emanating 

from this downturn, and we have to 

step up to the plate and do our part. 

Whether we live in a city, whether we 

live in a county, whether we work for 

the people as a member of a city council, whether we work as a county supervisor, whether we work as a mayor 

or a House Member or a Senator, all of 

us who work for the people have to step 

up to the plate. 

I did something interesting, and it 

might be of interest to you. I worked 

with my staff. We have 58 counties in 

California and we got on the phone and 

we talked to the leaders of each of 

those counties and the 10 major cities 

in our State. We do have 38 million 

people in our State. They told us what 

is happening on the ground there, and 

it is not a pretty picture. Now, some of 

them are doing better than others. A 

lot of them are facing unemployment 

rates in their cities of 13 percent, 12 

percent, and 9 percent. In the inland 

empire area, which is just east of Los 

Angeles, we have the highest unemployment rate in the Nation, about 9.1 

percent. 

So the point of my setting the stage 

for my remarks by giving a broad look 

at what is happening is to make sure 

people understand we are not taking up 

this auto rescue plan in normal times. 

If it was normal times, that would be 

one thing. I wouldn’t be that sympathetic to the big three in normal times. 

I have had my arguments with them 

since the 1980s. I think their fighting 

California and the 19 other States that 

want better fuel economy is a huge 

mistake on their part, and I don’t want 

to reward them for that. But I have to 

tell you, when you look at the times 

we are in, you recognize we need to 

bridge these troubled times right now, 

bridge these troubled times with a loan 

so we can take a look at this when we 

have a new President, a new Congress, 

and, frankly, when we begin to see a 

light at the end of this tunnel, which I 

believe is going to come when our new 

President comes to us in January and 

we start to put together a plan for economic recovery. 

How tragic would it be if we lost this 

manufacturing base at this point in 

this recession, just as I do believe we 

are going to pull ourselves out of this 

mess we are in. We need a bridge to 

better times for the auto industry. By 

the way, other countries around the 

globe are doing the same for their auto 

industries. Because there are two 

things happening here. Detroit got in 

trouble because, in my view, they built 

those big cars, they didn’t diversify 

their fleet, and they fought us on fuel 

economy. Believe me, I was in that 

fight against them every step of the 

way. They won that fight. But now 

they are losing at the end of the day 

because they made a mistake in fighting us. 

But we don’t want to lose this manufacturing base at this time. We would 

be the only industrialized nation in the 

world not to have a domestic auto industry. 

When I hear my colleagues say I 

don’t like this little sentence here or 

that sentence there, I understand that. 

Believe me, there are a lot of things in 

S10898 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 11, 2008 

these bills I do not like at all. But we 

have to step back and say, in these 

troubled times, unparalleled since the 

Great Depression, do we want to leave 

here and risk the chance that we could 

wake up without a manufacturing base 

in our great Nation? I say the answer is 

no. 

I have three reasons for voting for 

this rescue package: Jobs, jobs and 

jobs. When we were hit with foreclosures, the first round of them, they 

had to do with predatory lending. They 

had to do with some things that were 

outrageous—people put in these 

subprime loans who could have been in 

prime loans. They woke up one day 

when they were paying $400 a month 

and suddenly it is $1,000 a month. They 

couldn’t do it. We hope those loans 

could be restructured. That is one set 

of difficult circumstances for going 

into foreclosures. The far worse set of 

circumstances is when you lose your 

job and your family cannot make it. 

That is the thing I wish to avoid. 

My focus is on this economy and 

making sure we are doing everything 

to save, preserve, and create jobs. With 

each passing day, we realize what a crisis we are in. Again, today we found 

out more people filed for unemployment compensation, a bigger number 

than we have seen in 26 years. When I 

heard we lost 533,000 jobs last month, it 

sent shivers up and down my spine. If 

we don’t act, we risk seeing another 2 

to 3 million jobs that could be at risk. 

We know even the collapse of one of 

the big three could cause that. 

In my home State, we have 200,000 

auto-related jobs, second only to 

Michigan. 

At the Vehicle Accessory Center at 

Rancho Cucamonga, our general manager there writes that without a bridge 

loan to the big three: 

We run the risk of losing all the gains 

we’ve made over the years to make our company more competitive and to build new 

technologies and cars that will benefit consumers and improve our nation’s energy security. 

Gina Underwood, a controller at Saturn of Ontario, employing 48 people in 

Ontario, CA, wrote to me about the impact of the credit crisis. She says: 

The potential trickle down into my community borders on catastrophic. 

She adds: 

Helping our industry in the short-term will 

have a much lower cost than addressing the 

effects of a failed industry in the midst of an 

economic turnaround. 

The Los Angeles County Federation 

of Labor says the decline in the auto 

industry: 

. . . is responsible for nearly 11 percent of 

California’s job loss in the past year. 

The California chapter of the United 

Auto Workers writes: 

These loans will enable domestic auto 

companies to continue operations and will 

avoid putting thousands of people out of 

work. 

I ask unanimous consent to have 

these letters printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

VEHICLE ACCESSORY CENTER, 

Rancho Cucamonga, CA, November 12, 2008. 

Senator BARBARA BOXER. 

DEAR SENATOR BOXER: I own a company 

that exclusively provides goods and services 

to General Motors Dealerships in Southern 

California. I am writing to urge you to support GM and America’s domestic auto industry. Our company employs up to 50 people 

and there are millions more Americans 

among suppliers, dealers, retirees and communities that depend on our industry for 

their livelihood and well-being. 

All of us need your support now. We cannot 

sustain our industry because of the worst financial crisis to hit our country in over half 

a century. We run the risk of losing all of the 

gains we’ve made over the years to make our 

company more competitive and to build new 

technologies and cars that will benefit consumers and improve our nation’s energy security. 

Our industry is the real economy that runs 

through Main Street. I call on you and your 

Congressional colleagues to help preserve 

jobs and help the domestic auto industry 

weather this financial storm. With your support, I know my company will emerge 

stronger and more competitive. And, that 

means a stronger economy and a more competitive America. 

I have attached an industry fact sheet that 

really demonstrates the critical nature of 

this industry to our economy. I look forward 

to seeing you take an active role in passing 

legislation to support this critical economic 

need. 

Sincerely, 

RUSSELL R. HOYT, 

General Manager/Partner. 

SATURN OF ONTARIO, 

Ontario, CA, December 2, 2008. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR BOXER: My name is Gina M 

Underwood and I am the Controller at Saturn of Ontario. My dealership employs 48 

with an annual payroll of $1,986,059. Our business also supports dozens of local suppliers 

that are intertwined in our community providing multiple more jobs. I am writing because I fear much of this will be lost and the 

impact to my community severe if the domestic auto industry is allowed to fail under 

the weight of the current economic chaos. I 

believe I have good reason to request your 

support. 

The negative effects of the global credit 

crisis have caused a huge downturn in consumer confidence that I see play out on my 

car lot every day. I have seen my sales plummet to levels not seen since World War II. 

The manufacturers who supply me can’t get 

credit to complete their restructurings and 

put advanced technologies into production, 

my customers can’t get credit to buy the 

new cars off my lot and I can’t get credit to 

finance my monthly inventory. The potential trickle down into my community borders on catastrophic. 

Hundreds of jobs in my community will be 

lost. 

Multiple suppliers will go under. 

On a broader scale, billions of dollars already invested in asserting U.S. technological leadership for advanced propulsion 

systems—in batteries, fuel cells, hybrids and 

biofuels—will be lost. 

Our manufacturing ability, critical for our 

national security is threatened which only 

exacerbates our dependence on foreign oil. 

The critics say that the industry has not 

done enough to save itself. They could not be 

more wrong. The auto manufacturers have 

been investing $10 billion in plants and 

equipment each year. The quality gap has 

been all but erased between U.S.-based and 

foreign manufacturers. And new labor agreements that will put the domestic industry in 

line with our foreign competitors will take 

effect in 2010. 

I cannot urge you strongly enough to take 

action on behalf of my community and my 

industry. Helping our industry in the shortterm will have a much lower cost than addressing the effects of a failed industry in 

the midst of an economic turnaround. Sadly, 

I fear the price of inaction is greater than 

my business can bear. Thank you for your 

time to hear my concerns. 

Sincerely, 

GINA UNDERWOOD. 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

FEDERATION OF LABOR, AFL–CIO, 

Los Angeles, CA, December 5, 2008. 

Senator BARBARA BOXER, 

Los Angeles, CA. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER: I write to you out of 

concern for the millions of autoworkers who 

will lose their good jobs if federal emergency 

aid isn’t passed for automakers and because 

the industry’s downfall is responsible for 

nearly 11 percent of California’s job loss in 

the past year. It has also robbed tens of millions of dollars from state and local treasuries that are responsible for funding some 

of our most crucial public services. 

While we in Los Angeles are fortunate not 

to be home to an industry that is on a verge 

of collapse, we are the nation’s capitol of the 

working poor. In my many years leading the 

union representing hotel workers, I have 

come to witness how low-wage workers 

struggle just to get by. They struggle to feed 

their children, pay their bills and rent. When 

their children fall ill they rely on home remedies instead of taking them to the doctor 

because they simply can’t afford it. 

My concern for workers if the emergency 

assistance fails to pass is not whether they 

will find another job elsewhere, but what 

will become of them in that next job. I worry 

that it will force them into our nation’s 

ranks of the working poor. In my 30 years in 

the labor movement I’ve come to learn that 

poverty in our communities doesn’t stem 

from a lack of jobs. It stems from a lack of 

good jobs that provide middle class wages 

and benefits—jobs that provide the pathway 

to reach the American dream. 

As leaders, you as a public servant and I as 

a labor leader, have a moral responsibility to 

fight for good jobs that allow men and 

women to raise their families with pride, 

dignity and with the piece of mind that a secure retirement brings. We must do everything possible to ensure that the industry 

that was once the backbone of our middle 

class rises to those heights once again, So I 

urge you today to vote for government aid to 

automakers. 

In solidarity, 

MARIA ELENA DURAZO, 

Executive Secretary-Treasurer. 

UAW REGION 5, 

Fremont, CA, December 1, 2008. 

Re Bridge Loan for the Big Three. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

San Francisco, CA. 

DEAR SENATOR BOXER: On behalf of the 

UAW postdoctoral research members who reside in San Francisco, we would greatly appreciate it if you would take some time away 

from your busy schedule to meet with us before December 8, 2008, here in the City. 

The purpose of our meeting is to help you 

understand the serious issues that the UAW 

is facing concerning the Big Three auto 

loans. These loans will enable domestic auto 

companies to continue operations and will 

avoid putting thousands of people out of 

work. We also need to remember that suppliers who make certain parts for auto companies will be affected by this as well. Let’s 

December 11, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10899 

not forget that the auto industry has been 

woven into the fabric of the United States of 

America, and without it, we will fail. 

This is an extremely important issue to all 

of us. Please would you contact my secretary, Veronica Morgan, at (510) 656–9901, 

and let her know the date and time you will 

be available. You can also contact me on my 

cell, . 

Sincerely, 

PAT CACCAMO, 

UAW CAP Representative, Region 5. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the unemployment rate in my State, again, is 

8.2 percent in California; 8.2 percent. It 

is rising. Losing another 200,000 jobs at 

this time is catastrophic. If we leave 

and we risk that, then it is our fault. 

The people who vote this way will have 

to answer to their own consciences. 

Failure to act is not an option. 

Here’s the thing, there is a huge cost 

of inaction. I understand my colleagues 

are very concerned about the cost to 

taxpayers. I share that concern. I never 

heard them talk about that when their 

States were giving all kinds of incentives to foreign car companies to come 

in. I will get to that later. But here is 

what happens in addition to the massive job losses if the big three fail. The 

burden on taxpayers to pick up the 

pieces would be much more costly than 

these loans. Losing GM, Ford or Chrysler would add billions of dollars in 

costs to the already depleted Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Taxpayers would have to provide health 

care, unemployment benefits, and 

other related services. Unfunded health 

care liabilities would be forced into 

Medicare and Medicaid with costs 

reaching $50 billion. If the automakers 

file for bankruptcy, it could lead to a 

$108 billion loss to the Treasury because of reduced individual income. 

My colleagues say let them go bankrupt, as if it is a magic solution. It is 

not a magic solution because the polls 

tell us 80 percent of the people will not 

buy a car from a bankrupt automaker 

because of obvious reasons. If you want 

to keep your car 3, 4, 5 years—I keep 

mine 9 or 10 years—you want to make 

sure you have the parts available to fix 

your car. You want to make sure you 

have someone who understands the car 

and can service the car. 

This is not similar to a dress company going out of business and declaring bankruptcy. That is sad and it is 

tough but, you know, you are not going 

to worry about it. If you have a dress 

by someone and the company goes out 

of business, you are not going to be 

dealing with that manufacturer. You 

are if you buy a car. By providing $14 

billion in loan authority now with requirements that the money be paid 

back, we are taking steps to protect 

taxpayers from at least $150 billion in 

future liabilities, should the auto companies shut down. 

Then there are people who say isn’t 

this the first of what could be many 

interventions? I can’t predict that. I 

am just saying at this time, now, with 

what we know about the state of this 

economy, with what we know about the 

state of the lost equity in the market, 

with what we know about the state of 

housing, of construction, of the number 

of people filing—this the Christmas 

season. My goodness, let’s take a 

chance on this. Let’s take a chance on 

this. 

The administration gave $150 billion 

to an insurance company. I never heard 

anybody at that time say: Well, the 

workers in that insurance company 

make too much money. That is the 

problem. You never heard a word about 

that from my Republican friends. 

Blaming the workers for this is outrageous. They have given back and 

they have given back and they have 

given back. 

What would happen to the thousands 

of other associated businesses that rely 

on GM, Ford, and Chrysler if they went 

belly up? The big three share 80 percent 

of the supplier base in this country. If 

one of the companies goes bankrupt, 

these small- and medium-size businesses could lose significant revenue 

and be forced to make layoffs or close 

their doors. 

I wish to talk about other countries 

taking significant steps to support 

their domestic auto manufacturing 

base. Countries throughout Europe and 

Asia are providing assistance to their 

auto manufacturers during this time of 

crisis. You take all the auto companies 

now—take Toyota. Their sales are way 

down. Everybody is hit by this recession. The question is, Do we abandon 

this manufacturing base? Credit markets are still frozen. For that, I have to 

say, and let me be clear—I don’t understand what Mr. Paulson has done since 

we gave him that authority for $350 billion. Why are the credit markets still 

as frozen as they are? 

The answer comes back: It could 

have been worse. I believe that. It 

could have been worse. But we need to 

do a better job there. Let me be clear, 

I am not voting—if I have to vote 

today, tomorrow, next week—to release the next $350 billion to this administration. So let me put that on the 

line. 

Other countries are recognizing that, 

with the credit markets frozen, they 

need to maintain their strong manufacturing base. We are the greatest country in the world. How could we ever 

continue our leadership if we lose that 

manufacturing base? I know Senator 

STABENOW has been quite eloquent on 

the point, about how integrated the 

manufacturing base is with our military and national defense infrastructure. The big three automakers are the 

biggest customers for many of the 

major suppliers of parts and technology for the armed services. From 

onboard computer devices to tires to 

engine machinery, these suppliers 

often rely on the big three to sustain 

their businesses. 

I say to my colleagues on the other 

side who are taking the lead against 

this: Think about it. We all stand for a 

strong defense. If you lose this manufacturing base, whom are you going to 

rely on if we have more national emergencies, international emergencies? We 

know we cannot afford to lose this 

base. 

I mentioned before that some of my 

colleagues on the other side—the Senator from Alabama, the Senator from 

Tennessee—they have been very outspoken against helping the auto companies. Where were they when Alabama 

provided $258 million in taxpayer-funded incentives to the foreign automaker 

Mercedes-Benz to build an auto manufacturing plant in the State of Alabama? I never heard them speak up. Do 

they only speak out against American 

workers who work for American companies here? They support the foreign 

companies, not the American companies. 

Tennessee offered at least $200 million in incentives to Toyota to build an 

assembly plant in Chattanooga. Instead, they landed in Mississippi. Mississippi provided Toyota $296 million in 

taxpayer-funded initiatives. Why don’t 

I hear my colleagues from Tennessee or 

Mississippi out here saying: Oh, that 

was a mistake. Taxpayers should not 

have been on the hook. 

Something is wrong. Is this about not 

helping these workers because they are 

tough and they joined a union? Is that 

it? What is this? It doesn’t smell right. 

You can’t support giving money to lure 

foreign manufacturers into your State, 

foreign auto companies into your 

State, and then suddenly turn on folks 

who are trying to save the domestic 

automobile industry. 

It is not that I am against what those 

States did. I am just talking about 

being consistent. If you didn’t oppose 

giving money to foreign car companies, 

why do you oppose giving a bridge loan 

to our own domestic manufacturing 

base at a time of great economic peril? 

We will live to fight another day on 

this, that is for sure. As I said, if this 

were a different time, if this were a different place, if the economy were 

thriving and one of those companies 

had problems due to their own ineptitude, I would not be here now. This is 

a worldwide recession. Other countries 

are moving forward. I hope the American people understand this. 

If we are to add 2 to 3 million more 

unemployed people onto the list, we 

are going to be in a downward spiral. It 

is going to be very hard for us to recover in the near term. 

Again, the big three have made a lot 

of mistakes. I met with them in the 

1980s. I will never forget it. I was over 

in the House and I was on a committee 

that was dealing with fuel economy. I 

said: Why don’t you make more of 

these fuel-efficient cars? At that time, 

I said: My kids are in college. I see 

their friends are all buying these 

smaller cars. They want to buy American, but they cannot. They cannot afford the gas. That was after we had this 

crisis in the 1970s. 

They said: You don’t know what you 

are talking about. Those small cars, 

you don’t make enough money on 


xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
S10900 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 11, 2008 

them, they are no good. People want 

big cars. That is good. We make more 

money. They said to me: We are giving 

up those small cars to other companies, to foreign companies. 

I believed that was wrong. I said you 

need to have diversity. 

They decided to go their way. 

I don’t have a great deal of sympathy 

for the management over there responsible for this. They didn’t take the lead 

in research and development of advanced technology vehicles. They put 

too many of their resources into gas 

guzzlers. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 10 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mrs. BOXER. They ignored signs that 

their future success would depend on 

an ability to adapt to a changing business climate with innovation and new 

technologies. When I learned of the financial problems facing GM, Ford, and 

Chrysler, I viewed a possible rescue 

plan as an opportunity to help Detroit 

embrace new technologies that could 

lead them toward a strong and prosperous future. I still think, because of 

the White House’s objection, the bill 

before us is making a big mistake because I wanted to make sure we could 

say in this bridge loan the funds could 

not be used to pursue litigation related 

to the California waiver. 

Well, the administration will not go 

for that. We know where they stand on 

energy independence, we know where 

they stand on fighting global warming, 

on clean cars. They stand nowhere—or 

I should say they stand somewhere in a 

bad place. If the big three would embrace the California waiver, understanding that 19 other States are with 

us, and produce cars to meet the goals, 

the very clean-air goals we have there, 

I think we would be a leader in the 

world. I see that in our future. I really 

do. 

I know in your State, Mr. President, 

we are seeing a whole new range of 

manufacturing dealing with solar panels. It is very exciting. This is the future. This is the future. Our big three 

should be leading the way. I hope they 

got the message in this last runup of 

gas prices. I hope they get the message 

that there is global warming and that 

we are going to have to deal with it if 

our planet is to survive. 

I am confident that President-elect 

Obama is going to approve the waiver. 

I am confident that when he does that, 

it is going to be a big help to the big 

three because they will really buckle 

down. 

By the way, we are going to reimburse this technology fund, they are 

going to move ahead and they are 

going to meet the requirements with 

the cleanest cars possible, and it will 

be a new day. Now, if all three of them 

do it and two of them survive in the future, that may be the way. We do not 

know. But what we do know is that 

today, this day, December 11, so close 

to Christmas, we do know that to walk 

away without helping this important 

industry could lead—could lead—to a 

far deeper recession and even toward a 

depression. 

With this auto retooling program 

from which these funds are being borrowed, this will be replenished. Speaker PELOSI has indicated to me personally that they will be replenished. I 

call on my colleagues in the Senate to 

support quick replenishment of the 

program, which is essential to the effort of repositioning the U.S. at the 

forefront of new transportation and advanced battery technologies. 

You know, we have startup companies in my State—very exciting. One of 

them is called Tesla Motors and the 

other is Fisker Automotive. That is 

two of them. They are leading the effort to develop advanced technology 

batteries, zero-emission cars, and highperformance plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. I have driven some of these cars. 

They are extraordinary. These companies and others, including the big 

three, are processing section 136 loan 

applications to retool manufacturing 

plants and speed up the development of 

technology that will put the United 

States right out in front, leading the 

way to clean cars and clean technology. 

I wish to point out that no bill is perfect. I could write a bill that would be 

far better for me. Every Senator could. 

But there is significant taxpayer oversight in this bill, as well as benchmarks that the big three must meet in 

order to continue to receive Government assistance. 

By January 1, the car czar will develop benchmarks to determine how to 

assess each company’s progress in 

turning its plans submitted to Congress into long-term restructuring 

plans. The benchmarks will focus on 

how the big three will restructure their 

businesses for long-term viability, increased fuel efficiency, advanced technology, managing debt, capitalization, 

and future cost requirements. 

So to my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle who say: Let them go bankrupt, it is better, they will restructure, 

we are going to make sure they restructure without declaring bankruptcy and without unloading all of the 

cost of that bankruptcy onto the backs 

of taxpayers. If any of the big three fail 

to submit long-term restructuring 

plans by March 31, 2009, the car czar 

has the authority to call the loan or 

cancel the loan commitment within 30 

days, requiring the loan to be paid 

back at an accelerated rate. 

Taxpayers will recover the cost of 

these loans over 7 years at a rate of 5 

percent for the first 5 and 9 percent 

thereafter. The car czar will have access to all financial records of the big 

three and will have the ability to prohibit asset sales or possible investments over $100 million, which will protect U.S. jobs being outsourced. The 

Government will have senior debt status for repayment of the loans, meaning we are in the front of the line to recover loan payments regardless of the 

companies’ success. Stock warrants 

will ensure the taxpayers benefit from 

any future growth these companies 

may experience. The bill prohibits 

golden parachutes, puts limits on executive compensation and bonus compensation to top employees, and it requires the companies to divest from 

any private jet investments. The payment of dividends to shareholders will 

be prohibited during the loan period. In 

other words, there is every incentive 

for these companies to turn their companies around. They want to pay dividends to shareholders, they want to get 

bonuses, they want to get back to business as usual. But we say: Before you 

do, you have to pay us back. They have 

a lot of reasons to make this turnaround. 

The loan program will be subject to 

strict auditing by the Comptroller General and the GAO. The car czar will be 

tasked with facilitating agreements between unions, retirees, debtholders, 

creditors, suppliers, auto dealers, and 

shareholders to reduce costs and ensure 

long-term viability. 

Again, I say to my colleagues who 

are saying let them go bankrupt, take 

a look at this bill. You are saying let 

them go bankrupt because they will 

have to restructure. We say restructure 

without the bankruptcy because if, in 

fact, there is a bankruptcy declared, 80 

percent of the American people say 

they will not buy a car from a company 

that has gone bankrupt. I understood 

that. So this avoids the bankruptcy 

and allows them to restructure. If we 

fail to do this, we are playing Russian 

roulette with this recession. In times 

of crisis, you have to see opportunities. 

I believe, as a major critic of the car 

companies since the 1980s when I was 

here in the House of Representatives, 

they have finally gotten the message. 

It has taken them too long. They have 

been too arrogant. They have not seen 

the world changing. They have not noticed global warming. They have been 

blinded to so many things that were 

happening around them. They were 

hostile to California and the 19 other 

States that want to clean up our environment and get better fuel mileage, 

have clean cars. Instead of embracing 

those States and working with those 

States—by the way, those 19 States and 

California represent a majority of the 

American people. A majority of the 

American people want clean cars. 

Now, it may have taken this horrific 

turn of events to get the message 

through, but clearly the message must 

be getting through. Jeffrey Sachs 

wrote recently in the Washington Post: 

American-made fuel-cell cars may be a 

large-scale reality within a decade. Success 

would dramatically improve energy and national security and U.S. global competitiveness. 

Now, this is the opportunity. But 

guess what. If we do not act, if we do 

not act and this recession keeps deepening, we will not have this chance. We 

will be the only industrialized democracy without a domestic auto company 

December 11, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10901 

and without that manufacturing base. 

So we have to do what is necessary to 

push Detroit toward a stronger, more 

efficient future. It may be that at some 

point in the future, that industry will 

have a different look to it. Maybe it 

will have a different look to it. We do 

not know that. But what we do know 

now is that what has hit Detroit is far 

more than making the wrong choices 

about what cars they produce. I think 

they made those wrong choices, but it 

is far bigger than that because every 

company in America and outside of 

America that is making cars is suffering today because of the terrible recession we are in, because of a lack of 

consumer confidence, because of a loss 

of equity in the stock market, because 

of home foreclosures, because of all of 

these things. 

So I say you never know what could 

happen in the future. I am not able to 

predict it because I cannot. But I know 

what I have to do now. I have to think 

about those three things: jobs, jobs, 

and jobs. When I think about that, and 

I recognize that just today we had 

more filings for unemployment insurance than we have had in 26 years, I 

say for us to walk away from this without this scaled-down bridge loan would 

be playing Russian roulette with this 

recession. I love my country too much 

to do that. With all of the problems I 

have with Detroit, I will support helping them in this fashion. 

f 

EXTENSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the period for 

morning business be extended until 2 

p.m., with Senators permitted to speak 

for up to 10 minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

MCCASKILL). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of 

a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE 

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I 

also ask unanimous consent that Senator NELSON of Florida be allowed to 

speak after me. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you very 

much, Madam President. 

f 

CLEANUP OF NUCLEAR MISSILE 

SITE IN CHEYENNE, WYOMING 

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I 

stand here today holding a 500-page report, a report that was sent to my office yesterday by the Army Corps of 

Engineers. I will not read the whole report, I am happy to say, but I want to 

call attention to the Senate and to the 

country, as well as to the people of Wyoming, what is contained within this 

report. 

This report, at a cost of who knows 

how many taxpayer dollars, says something I have known and the people of 

Wyoming have known to be true. It 

says the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the contamination of the 

water wells of the city of Cheyenne. 

Now, let me clarify. The report does 

not actually say the words ‘‘we are responsible.’’ Washington could never 

admit its faults so directly. No. Instead, the report states that other potential sources of contamination, other 

potential sources of this trichloroethylene—the contaminant, the chemical that is in our city’s wells—it says 

that other potential sources ‘‘may be 

limited.’’ I guess that is Washington’s 

way of saying: It was us. 

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the city of 

Cheyenne found evidence of trichloroethylene in the water supply in 1998—10 

years ago. The culprit is a dormant 

Cold War-era nuclear missile area. It is 

a missile site and has been there for a 

long time. The Army Corps of Engineers admits that over 1,800 gallons of 

this contaminant, TCE, was dumped at 

the Atlas 4 nuclear missile site each 

year—each year—of the operation of 

the missile site, beginning in the mid1960s. 

Well, the discharge of TCE the Army 

Corps admits to is a mere 1 mile—1 

mile—from the water wells of the city 

of Cheyenne. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has 

claimed there is one giant plume of 

TCE emanating from the former nuclear missile site, working its way into 

and then contaminating the city’s 

water wells. The missile site is currently being cleaned up under the 

Superfund laws by the Army Corps of 

Engineers. Unfortunately, the Army 

Corps only admits culpability for TCE 

contamination directly emanating 

from the nuclear missile site. They allege that there is actually a gap between the plume they admit to at the 

nuclear missile site and the one around 

the city’s water wells—1 mile apart. 

Now, you might think it odd that the 

Department of Defense, given the volume of this chemical that has been 

dumped year after year in rural Wyoming, would not admit that it was the 

responsible party for contaminating 

the city’s wells. That would just make 

sense. They would say: Yes, we dumped 

it here. It is right here, a mile away in 

the wells. It is our fault. No. It would 

just make sense to us that they would 

admit it. But, in fact, the Army Corps 

over the last few years has looked to 

blame almost anyone else, has looked 

to blame others than to say they are 

responsible for contaminating the 

city’s wells. Well, such claims have included that there might have been a 

train derailment and the train might 

have been carrying TCE into the area. 

They said it might have been from a 

nearby oil rig, it might have been from 

a local shooting range. The Army 

Corps said: Anybody but us. 

I became involved in this issue after 

I felt the city of Cheyenne and the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality were being ignored by Washington. As ranking member of the 

Superfund and Environmental Health 

Subcommittee, I pushed for testing of 

the ground in that 1-mile area between 

the nuclear missile site and the water 

wells of the city of Cheyenne. The 

Army Corps finally agreed to do the 

testing and said it would also look into 

the historical use of this chemical in 

the Cheyenne area to make sure there 

was not another responsible party for 

the contamination. 

The final results—all 500 pages—were 

finally released this week. To no one’s 

surprise who lives in Wyoming, to no 

one’s surprise who is familiar with this 

issue, to no one’s surprise but the 

Army Corps of Engineers, the contaminating chemical, TCE, was found in the 

ground between the nuclear missile 

site and the city’s water wells, right 

where we said it would be. The report 

also revealed they found no other public records of TCE use in the Cheyenne 

area for any other reason. It just 

makes sense to us, and the cause is 

clear. Given these findings, it is time 

for the Army Corps to provide the 

funding the city needs to manage and 

to complete the current cleanup efforts. 

Now, let me be clear. The city of 

Cheyenne’s water is safe. Untold thousands of taxpayer dollars have gone to 

keep TCE out of the water supply. The 

city of Cheyenne and the State of Wyoming have implemented the effective 

procedures to protect the folks in 

Cheyenne. Those efforts have been 

completely successful. But the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Government have the responsibility to 

fund the cleanup. They have responsibility to fix the problem, and this report says it is so. It is time to do so. 

Madam President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SENATORS 

JOHN WARNER

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam 

President, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a true patriot 

and a dear friend, Senator JOHN WARNER of Virginia. 

It has been an extraordinary experience for me to serve with Senator WARNER on the Armed Services Committee 

and the Intelligence Committee. 

In the capacity of his service on the 

Armed Services Committee, which has 

been upwards of three decades, serving 

as its chairman, the insight and guidance he has provided has been invaluable. Over and over, you will hear the