December 11, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10913 

As I understand it, one of the two bills 

that is going to come before the Senate—as soon as this afternoon—one is 

the bill passed by the House, and the 

other is a similar Senate proposal. Unfortunately, much like the other bailouts we have passed, those bills rely on 

hopes and promises of future actions 

and do not require serious concessions. 

Those bills do not address the immediate problems facing the industry, 

which is a lack of funding for car loans 

and dealer floor plans, and many other 

related issues. 

While the Detroit manufacturers 

were forced by the economic crisis to 

come to Congress for aid at this time, 

their problems are not just the result 

of problems in our current financial 

markets. The companies are simply uncompetitive in today’s marketplace because of decades of bad business decisions by both the corporate management and the labor unions. What is 

needed is a serious restructuring of the 

companies that brings their costs in 

line with the costs of cars made by 

manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota and their capacity in line with the 

true demand for new cars, not the artificially inflated demand of the last few 

years. 

Neither the House bill nor the Senate 

bill forces these companies and their 

stakeholders to make the changes necessary to force restructuring. The socalled car czar has no real power to 

make the companies and stakeholders 

reach an agreement accomplishing the 

cost and capacity changes that must be 

made. Because the companies would 

not survive in the long term without 

those changes, they would be back before Congress next year asking for 

more money to get them through the 

next few months, and back again and 

again. That is an irresponsible use of 

taxpayer dollars and would ultimately 

lead to the death of the companies and 

many thousands and thousands of jobs 

permanently being lost. Because I care 

too much about the workers, I cannot 

support either of these bills as they are 

currently written. 

I have previously said I would support Federal assistance for companies 

if they undertake a chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring. Federal financing 

and warranty guarantees would enable 

the companies to emerge from that restructuring successfully and more 

quickly than they would otherwise. 

Senator SHELBY and Senator ENSIGN

have an amendment to do just that, 

and I will be supporting their amendment if they are allowed to have a vote 

on it on the floor of the Senate. 

However, chapter 11 bankruptcy is 

not the ideal solution, and I know just 

the word ‘‘bankruptcy’’ causes many 

people whose jobs, retirement, and 

health care depend on the companies to 

shudder. A similar restructuring that 

accomplishes significant changes outside of bankruptcy would work as well. 

Senator CORKER has an amendment 

that would require those significant 

changes as a condition of Federal assistance provided in the majority’s bill. 

If the majority allows a vote on Senator CORKER’s amendment, I will support it. If the amendment is adopted to 

the Senate version of the bill, I will 

support passage. If the majority blocks 

any minority amendments, as they 

have done for nearly the entire Congress, I will oppose the bill and any cloture motions. 

I will go ahead and state for the 

record that if the Corker amendment 

passes and the bill becomes law, I will 

oppose any and all attempts to weaken 

its requirements. Now, I say that 

knowing full well that I am very concerned that come January 20, the majority might try to rewrite the requirements so that the companies are not 

forced to make painful changes that 

are necessary for them to survive in 

the long term. I hope that will not be 

the case. 

For these companies to survive and 

thrive, there must be painful changes 

made, and we all know some jobs will 

be lost. However, with a successful restructuring, the Corker amendment 

being included, more jobs will be preserved for the long term than if we just 

prop up the companies with taxpayers’ 

dollars for a few short months and hope 

for the best. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

Mr. President, since no one else is in 

the Chamber, 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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I 

would like to speak for less than 10 

minutes as in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair. 

f 

HOLDER NOMINATION HEARING 

SCHEDULE 

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I 

would like to discuss Eric Holder’s 

nomination to be the U.S. Attorney 

General. While Mr. Holder appears to 

have the appropriate credentials and 

work experience, it is important that 

the Judiciary Committee be able to 

fully and carefully vet the candidate 

for this important position because 

this is the Nation’s top law enforcement officer. 

I was surprised to hear that the 

chairman of the Judiciary Committee 

noticed Mr. Holder’s confirmation 

hearing for January 8, 2009. Mr. Holder 

was only formally announced as the 

prospective Attorney General nominee 

on December 1 of this year. I understand the Judiciary Committee has a 

large number of boxes of archived documents relating to his employment at 

the Justice Department, and those materials need to be reviewed. We have 

not even gotten Mr. Holder’s questionnaire, nomination materials, or FBI 

background investigation yet. Judiciary Committee members just sent a 

letter to the Justice Department and 

the Clinton Library requesting documents relating to issues that Mr. Holder was involved in during his tenure in 

the Clinton Justice Department. Once 

we get these materials and once these 

documents come to us, it will take 

some time for committee members to 

review them. 

While it is not unprecedented for the 

Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing 

prior to the inauguration of a President, such as the one held for former 

Attorney General John Ashcroft, there 

are significant differences. First, the 

Ashcroft nomination hearing was held 

from January 16 to January 19, 2001, 

obviously giving committee members 

more breathing room to review his 

record. Moreover, Attorney General 

Ashcroft was a well-known quantity to 

us because he served as our colleague 

in the U.S. Senate and he was a prominent member of the Judiciary Committee. Of course, this was all prior to 

his nomination for Attorney General. 

Even then, my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle insisted on 2 days of 

testimony from the nominee and 2 days 

of testimony from 23 other outside witnesses, for a total of 4 days of hearings. 

The bottom line is that the proposed 

January 8 hearing timetable doesn’t 

give members a full and fair chance to 

consider Mr. Holder’s background as 

thoroughly as we should. We must have 

time to comprehensively examine all of 

Mr. Holder’s information, materials, 

and documents, most of which we 

haven’t even received yet. There is no 

need to jump the gun and undermine 

our oversight responsibilities. 

This is all the more important because Mr. Holder is not a nominee free 

and clear of issues. The fact is Mr. 

Holder played a very key role in some 

very controversial matters, and since 

his nomination, a number of newspapers, including the New York Times, 

the Washington Post, and the Wall 

Street Journal, have all published articles reminding the public of those controversies and raising serious questions 

about Mr. Holder’s role in them. These 

issues need to be fully considered by 

members of the Judiciary Committee 

and eventually by the full Senate. 

For example, red flags about Mr. 

Holder’s judgment and independence 

include his role in securing pardons or 

clemency for an unrepentant billionaire fugitive tax cheat such as Marc 

Rich or terrorists such as members of 

the FALN and Weather Underground. A 

lot of people—including this Senator— 

have found these facts to be troubling. 

As I previously mentioned, a number of 

editorials have been written asking 

questions about how those facts impact 

Mr. Holder’s ability to serve as U.S. 

Attorney General. I expect to question 

Mr. Holder at his confirmation hearing 

about these and other controversial 

matters he has been involved with. 

S10914 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 11, 2008 

In addition, Mr. Holder has been in 

private practice since he left the Clinton Justice Department over 8 years 

ago. It is important that we know what 

Mr. Holder has been doing in those 8 

years, which cases he has been involved 

with, and who his clients are, what 

speeches he has made, and so forth. For 

example, public reports have emerged 

that in 2004, the Governor of Illinois 

hired or sought to hire Mr. Holder. We 

certainly need time to learn what that 

is all about. Mr. Holder has not provided the committee with all of this information yet. Again, it is not unreasonable for members of the Judiciary 

Committee to want to receive all of 

these materials and have ample opportunity to study them before holding 

the nomination hearings. As such, I, 

then—this Senator, then—is in support 

of Senator SPECTER’s request that 

Chairman LEAHY move the hearing to a 

later date in January so committee 

members can do their duty and review 

Mr. Holder’s nomination in a responsible manner. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have 

been working, as I think the country 

knows and the Senate knows, for the 

last many weeks trying to come up 

with some way to resolve the issue of 

dealing with Detroit and the automobile manufacturers. We thought we 

were at a place today where we would 

have a series of votes and we were almost there when another Senator submitted another idea. As a result of 

that, there are good-faith negotiations 

going on as we speak. The last I heard 

is that they would have something 

completed by 5:30. I kind of smile when 

I say that, because considering the 

years I have spent here in the Senate, 

sometimes I don’t know if they are referring to ‘‘5:30’’ meaning 10 minutes 

from now or 12 hours and 10 minutes 

from now, but they said 5:30. If they are 

able to work that out, then the bill will 

overwhelmingly pass the Senate. I have 

told the House and the House will have 

to do whatever they do with that. But 

right now, that is not done. 

As I indicated, they said they 

thought a half hour or so ago it would 

be done by 5:30. I hope that is the case. 

I know it is late. I know people want 

more definite definitions of when this 

is all going to happen, but that isn’t 

the way the Senate works, as much as 

we would all like it to be. So if everyone will be patient, there is still a possibility—and even maybe a probability—that sometime this evening we 

would be able to vote. 

Now, Senator MCCONNELL and I don’t 

know at this stage what we will be voting on. If the negotiations which are 

going forward now bear fruit, then that 

will be the issue that I think would 

pass with a significant margin here in 

the Senate. There may be some other 

Senators who want to offer alternatives. I think there may be some 

suggestions for that to take place. At 

this stage, I think it is pretty clear 

that there is no need to vote on the 

House measure, because it is pretty 

clear there aren’t enough votes to pass 

that, but those decisions we will make 

shortly. I think what we are going to 

be voting on is a series of competing alternatives. There is not going to be an 

opportunity to offer a lot of individual 

rifleshot amendments to these different proposals, but I know that a 

number of Senators have one proposal. 

We have the one we talked about we 

will probably vote on today, and then 

we have the bipartisan issue that is 

being worked on right now. If we are 

fortunate, maybe we could wind up 

having three votes or maybe only two 

votes. But, anyway, we are doing our 

best to resolve this issue. 

There is no need to talk about all of 

the Senators involved. We will do that 

if we can work something out and they 

will get all the accolades they need. We 

have had a lot of cooperation today. 

That doesn’t mean we are going to be 

able to work something out, because 

this is a very important issue. But 

right now, I think we are a lot further 

down the road than I thought we would 

be. I was trying to think: Down the 

road distance, so it should be ‘‘farther’’ 

down the road. But, anyway, I wish to 

alert everyone they should be patient 

tonight. We hope to have some votes 

before the night is out. 

If everything falls apart, then we will 

be left with having a cloture vote on 

the Democratic version. Regardless of 

whether we work something out, that 

would be tomorrow morning, as early 

as we want to come in, but hopefully, 

that is not the resolution of this because that may not be the best way to 

solve the problem of Detroit. 

f 

EXTENSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 6:30 p.m. 

tonight with Senators allowed to speak 

therein for up to 10 minutes each. 

Of course, the Senators are always 

very cooperative. If, in fact, there is 

something that Senator MCCONNELL

and I have been able to work out, then 

we will ask that the person be interrupted and we will try to move forward 

with a unanimous consent agreement. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. I note the absence of a 

quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS 

RELATED TO THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in a moment I will ask unanimous consent 

that the Senate proceed to passage of 

H.R. 7327, the pension bill. Before I do 

that, I wish to say this is very important relief for seniors and for the country. The bill includes a provision that 

would allow seniors who are 701⁄2 years 

of age not to have to make withdrawals 

from their IRA accounts that the current law requires. Under current law, if 

you are 701⁄2 or older, you must begin to 

withdraw significant amounts from 

your 401(k) accounts or IRA accounts 

and if you don’t, you pay a big penalty. 

At these times it is not wise to require 

that, because the accounts are lower in 

value and they should not have to 

make those withdrawals if they don’t 

want to. 

In addition, this legislation would 

allow companies to postpone making 

increased contributions to their pension plans also required by the recent 

pension law. When we revised pension 

law a short while ago, we were pretty 

strict to protect employees by requiring companies to make contributions 

to the pension plans at a much faster 

rate. That made sense then, but given 

the economic downturn, with the market values down so much lower than 

they were back then, it makes sense, I 

believe—and I think most Senators 

agree—that those contributions should 

be postponed or later modified in order 

to keep companies viable. 

A lot of companies need this to meet 

payrolls in these difficult times, and 

this will prevent them having to freeze 

their benefits. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7327, which was received from the House. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the bill by title. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 7327) to make technical corrections related to the Pension Protection Act 

of 2006, and for other purposes. 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the bill. 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are 

living through an unprecedented economic downturn. Over the past 15 

months, the Dow Jones Industrial companies have lost more than one-third of 

their value. An end does not appear in 

sight. 

This sharp market decline hurts 

more than just Wall Street. It hurts 

every American with a retirement 

plan. When the market drops, so do the 

assets in pension plans. 

Over the past 15 months, because of 

the current financial crisis, retirement 

accounts have lost as much as $2 trillion in assets due to the current financial crisis. That is $2 trillion that disappeared from the retirement accounts 

of American workers. And that is $2 

trillion that disappeared from the accounts of pension plans.