November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10705 

Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 

earned him high praise from President 

Bush for his management of $87 billion 

supplemental appropriations bill in 

2003. 

Recently, Senator STEVENS has found 

himself in the midst of the debate on 

energy policy and finding innovative 

approaches to our dependency on oil. 

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

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

work ethic and tenacity always made 

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

will forever be remembered. Thank 

you, TED, for everything you have done 

for the United States and Alaska. 

f 

AUTO INDUSTRY BAILOUT 

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, 

earlier today, Senators LEVIN, BOND, 

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

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

wrestled with this issue. There have 

been many conflicting points of view as 

to what ought to be done. There has 

been little public sympathy for the 

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

long while of the need to reorganize 

and to approach the manufacture of 

automobiles differently in order to 

compete with foreign cars. There have 

been repeated efforts in the Congress to 

impose mileage standards. Finally, 

that was done last year. Now, with the 

severe economic problems facing the 

country, the automobile manufacturers 

find themselves in dire straits. The 

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

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

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

It is true the Federal Government has 

provided economic assistance to Bear 

Sterns and AIG, turned them down 

with Lehman Brothers. We are well 

aware of the fact that there could be 

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

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

emerge. That may well be true. But 

that could be risky as to what would 

happen. 

The Congress authorized some $700 

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

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

traveled broadly in Pennsylvania and 

found very strong public sentiment in 

opposition. The Congress acted in the 

face of having our backs to the wall or 

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

would choose. 

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

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

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

follow regular order. It started off with 

a bill with papers from the Treasury 

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

page memorandum, later expanded to 

more than 100 pages, ultimately to 

more than 400 pages. But when regular 

order is not followed, the consequence 

is likely to be not so good. Regular 

order requires a bill that one can read 

and study. It requires hearings before a 

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

at the facts. Then the committee—in 

this case, the Banking Committee— 

would sit down and have what is called 

a markup to go through the bill line by 

line. 

I explain this in some detail so there 

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

case. Senators are busy with other 

matters. Then after the markup, the 

committee files a report. Then it 

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

works its will. On the House side across 

the Rotunda, down the hall, the House 

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

two bodies meet for a conference. Then 

that is presented to the President. So 

there is a great deal of refining. 

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

out there was a lot of pork in the final 

draft that no one had a chance to 

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

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

skepticism, fairly stated, among the 

American people as to the wisdom of 

the Congress in putting up $700 billion. 

Now, with the automakers coming in 

asking for economic aid, the question 

arises, who next? Last Friday, I wrote 

to our leaders urging that we not rush 

to judgment. I made a similar request, 

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

and others are in the RECORD, and I 

will not encumber the RECORD further 

because they are available for anyone 

who cares to look at them. 

Secretary of the Treasury Paulson 

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

be right about that or he may be wrong 

about that. But that is the position the 

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

Then the idea has been proposed—and 

has been embodied in what Senators 

LEVIN, STABENOW, VOINOVICH, BOND, 

BROWN, and I announced earlier 

today—to use funds up to $25 billion 

from the 2007 appropriations which had 

been designated to meet the mileage 

requirements but not a blank check. 

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

of Commerce, there would have to be a 

plan. There would have to be a factual 

statement as to what the condition of 

the automobile manufacturers is, what 

would be done with the additional 

funds, what would be undertaken to 

guarantee that the moneys would not 

be used for increased executive pay or 

corporate jets or golden parachutes. 

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

Last Friday, as I put in the RECORD

this week, I wrote a letter to the chief 

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

Motors. I got no response from Ford. 

Frankly, I’m a little surprised that 

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

not to reach out but to respond. But 

executives from Chrysler came to see 

me, and I raised the questions as to 

what their condition was, how much 

cash they had on hand, how much cash 

they needed, what they would do with 

an infusion of economic aid, and what 

were the prospects for a recovery. 

That matter has now been put over 

by the leaders until December 8. So we 

now have 2 weeks, next week and the 

week after. Presumably, on the week of 

December 1, there will be hearings. The 

automobile manufacturers are going to 

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

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

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

those in the environmental community 

have raised the concern that the $25 

billion ought not to be directed away 

from changes on gas mileage. We are 

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

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

even more serious. The expression he 

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

are going to wait until January 20. It 

may even be a risk in waiting until 

mid-December, but that is the course 

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

he has conceded, to act with the funds 

which are now available. But in any 

event, I believe the legislation which 

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

very important. This is not an extra 

appropriation. We are not putting up 

more money. It is a different use of 

moneys already put up. The environmental issues could be safeguarded 

after January 20. With the Democrats 

in control of both Houses and the 

White House, they could write their 

own ticket to replenish that fund, if 

they choose to do so. But at least we 

are on a course now in the reasonably 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S10706 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 20, 2008 

near future to provide a legislative approach if—and it is a big ‘‘if’’—the auto 

manufacturers can come forward with 

a hard statement of facts as to where 

they are, a hard statement of facts of 

what they could do with these funds to 

show their viability. 

So we will await those hearings, and 

we will await what they do. But I 

would emphasize they will have to persuade the Congress to vote for the plan. 

But in order to persuade the Congress, 

they are going to have to persuade the 

American people over the course of the 

next 2 weeks with something a lot 

more specific than they came to town 

with over the course of the past several 

days and a lot more responsive than 

two of the companies not even responding to my request for a statement as to 

their case, as to how they propose to 

remain viable with the economic aid. 

I thank the Chair, and, in the absence of any other Senator on the 

floor, 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. WARNER. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SENATORS 

GORDON SMITH

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, 

today may mark the last day of this 

session, although I shall not try to 

make that prediction. However, I 

would not want this day to pass without availing myself of the opportunity 

and the privilege to come to this floor 

and say a few words on behalf of the 

very dear and valued friends whom I 

have served with in this Chamber as 

they depart and go on the road of life 

to, I expect, in each case great challenges. 

GORDON SMITH and I have become 

friends for ever so many reasons. One, 

we both love the outdoors. He and his 

devoted wife Sharon and my wife, we 

have all been close friends through 

these years. As I look back, I will always remember GORDON. I remember 

when I was chairman of the Armed 

Services Committee and entrusted with 

the extraordinary responsibilities— 

along with other committee members, 

as well as, indeed, every Member of 

this Chamber—entrusted with those decisions relating to this Nation’s Armed 

Forces who were fighting so valiantly 

then, today, and for the foreseeable future—I hope the short future—in Iraq. 

GORDON and I had many very quiet 

and private conversations about his 

deep concerns and convictions. His convictions emanated from the depths of 

his heart. Politics played no role in his 

approach to the conflict in Iraq. He was 

gravely concerned about the loss of life 

and limb, the image of this Nation, 

and, indeed, the families of the loved 

ones who are fighting in that conflict. 

So I say: GORDON, we had our differences, but I respected your stance. I 

can see him standing back there as 

erect as he always was, standing and 

voting against me and voting against 

others, but again, drawing on his own 

deeply held personal convictions. Time 

will tell and history will tell if I was 

right or if I was wrong, but I found his 

counsel, his willingness to listen, his 

willingness to share with me his most 

inner thoughts about that conflict a 

very valuable asset as I and others in 

leadership positions carried the heavy 

burden of that conflict. So I am grateful to him. He is a very sensitive man, 

and he showed that sensitivity every so 

often as he plunged into the complex 

issues with regard to health care, the 

almost insoluble problems—problems 

that he recognized have to be solved, 

particularly so that people of lesser 

means can achieve a measure of health 

care equivalent to those who have the 

means can receive for themselves. It is 

a hallmark of how this man proudly 

walked his way through life, with a 

loving wife by his side and the family 

whom he loves so dearly, and always 

thinking about those who perhaps have 

not had the opportunities that he and I 

and others have had, particularly as it 

relates to health care. 

He also loves the outdoors. A great 

golfer, we played together from time to 

time. His skill is far superior to mine 

in every way. He is a lover of art. We 

shared our interest in paintings, particularly paintings that had come from 

Scotland. To have had the friendship of 

GORDON SMITH is to have shared the life 

of a wonderful human being, and I 

thank GORDON for all that he has done 

for me and for this great Nation, and 

for his beloved State. I wish him well 

in his next venture, and I look forward 

to meeting him along the way. 

ELIZABETH DOLE

I have known her for quite a few 

years. We had a wonderful evening last 

night where the leadership of the Republican Party—indeed, almost all of 

the Members of the Republican caucus—came to say not farewell, but to 

listen to the words of those of us who 

are moving on and will not be a part of 

the next Congress. ELIZABETH got up, 

and she is such a very forceful speaker. 

She truly speaks from the heart. She 

has a remarkable memory. She recalled how when both of us were bachelor and spinster, we danced together. 

My lovely wife, who is a dear friend of 

hers, kind of looked at me and I winked 

and said, She was the best. It is just 

one of her marvelous traits. Talk about 

glass ceilings: She shattered her share. 

She has taken on many challenges in 

the private and public sector, some of 

which only men have ever had, and performed her duties with great distinction, and always with a quiet sense of 

what we call southern humility. She is 

very proud of her roots and her family. 

How often she has referred to her 

mother. 

She is a Phi Beta Kappa from Duke 

University and went on to Harvard for 

a master’s degree and a law degree. 

Secretary of Transportation, Secretary 

of Labor. Few women have had that 

much stamina, conviction, self-confidence to achieve those goals; and 

then, of course, to have become a U.S. 

Senator. That was a special challenge 

because she was fortunate to have as a 

husband Robert Dole, the Republican 

leader of the U.S. Senate, if I can say 

with a deep sense of humility, one of 

the best friends I ever had in this institution. 

I remember talking to him one time, 

of course, concerning the events of that 

particular period, and I said he ought 

to think about running for leader of 

the Senate. Oh, no, no. No, I don’t 

think they will ever elect me. Well, 

this conversation went on for some period of weeks, months, it may have 

been, I don’t recall. Finally, I said: I 

have so much faith that you can win 

that election that I would be happy to 

appoint myself as one of your managers of the campaign to get it. So I 

took that, along with several other 

very fine colleagues, both of whom 

moved on years ago from this Chamber. 

And he won. He was amazed that he 

had won. I wasn’t. I always recognized 

the leadership in him. He did a wonderful job as our Republican leader. His 

portrait proudly hangs right here in 

the corridor off of our Chamber. I never 

walk by that I don’t just quietly give 

him a hand salute, because I was a part 

of the World War II generation, but a 

very small part, serving only in the 

final year of the war and always in a 

training command, ready as a 17-, 18- 

year-old kid to become a replacement 

for those serving abroad. Bob Dole was 

truly one of those who earned the accolade of the ‘‘greatest generation.’’ He 

fought in Europe. He was a young lieutenant and in leading his men in the 

toughest of battles in Italy, he received 

what for others I think would have 

been mortal and fatal wounds. 

Because he had such an internal 

strength and constitution, he survived 

those wounds and came on to have a 

distinguished career. As I look back on 

his Senate days—and they pass so 

quickly, as did my 30 years—I remember taking trips with him. We went to 

Russia together, which was the Soviet 

Union at that time. He was a staunch 

believer that one day Russia would become just Russia once again and those 

people would have some measure of a 

voice in their Government. That did 

come to pass, and that was an extraordinary trip. 

What I best remember is the time of 

the D-day anniversary. He was asked to 

speak in Italy, where he had fought. 

And then, together, we traveled to the 

Normandy beaches to join the President and others. In the course of that 

trip, we went back to the very ground 

on which he was wounded. He walked 

over to the stone wall that is still 

there—he remembers it ever so well— 

where he dragged his badly wounded 

body to give him a measure of protection until help could come, after which 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE