`[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 185 (Wednesday, December 10, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H10908-H10935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AUTO INDUSTRY FINANCING AND RESTRUCTURING ACT

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
1534, I call up the bill (H.R. 7321) to authorize financial assistance 
to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 7321

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Auto 
     Industry Financing and Restructuring Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Presidential designation.
Sec. 4. Bridge financing.
Sec. 5. Restructuring progress assessment.
Sec. 6. Submission of plans.
Sec. 7. Financing for restructuring.
Sec. 8. Disapproval and call of loan.
Sec. 9. Allocation.
Sec. 10. Funding.
Sec. 11. Terms and conditions.
Sec. 12. Taxpayer protection.
Sec. 13. Oversight and audits.
Sec. 14. Automobile manufacturers' study on potential manufacturing of 
              transit vehicles.
Sec. 15. Reporting and monitoring.
Sec. 16. Report to Congress on lack of progress toward achieving an 
              acceptable negotiated plan.
Sec. 17. Submission of plan to Congress by the President's designee.
Sec. 18. Guarantee of leases of qualified transportation property.
Sec. 19. Coordination with other laws.
Sec. 20. Treatment of restructuring for purposes of applying 
              limitations on net operating loss carryforwards and 
              certain built-in losses.
Sec. 21. Emergency designation.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) A combination of factors, including errors in the 
     business model of domestic automobile manufacturers, and 
     emergency economic circumstances, has prevented the domestic 
     automobile industry from securing credit from other sources, 
     and has led to the possibility of the failure of the domestic 
     automobile industry, which failure would have a systemic 
     adverse effect on the economy.
       (2) Therefore, action in the form of financial aid to the 
     domestic automobile industry is necessary to stabilize the 
     economy.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to immediately provide authority and facilities to 
     restore liquidity and stability to the domestic automobile 
     industry in the United States; and
       (2) to ensure that such authority and such facilities are 
     used in a manner that--
       (A) results in a viable and competitive domestic automobile 
     industry that minimizes adverse effects on the environment;
       (B) enhances the ability and the capacity of the domestic 
     automobile industry to pursue the timely and aggressive 
     production of energy-efficient advanced technology vehicles;
       (C) preserves and promotes the jobs of American workers 
     employed directly by the domestic automobile industry and in 
     related industries;
       (D) safeguards the ability of the domestic automobile 
     industry to provide retirement and health care benefits for 
     the industry's retirees and their dependents; and
       (E) stimulates manufacturing and sales of automobiles 
     produced by automobile manufacturers in the United States.

     SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION.

       (a) Designation.--The President shall designate 1 or more 
     officers from the Executive Branch having appropriate 
     expertise in such areas as economic stabilization, financial 
     aid to commerce and industry, financial restructuring, energy 
     efficiency, and environmental protection (who shall 
     hereinafter in this Act be collectively referred to as the 
     ``President's designee'') to carry out the purposes of this 
     Act, including the facilitation of restructuring necessary to 
     achieve the long-term financial viability of domestic 
     automobile manufacturers, who shall serve at the pleasure of 
     the President.
       (b) Additional Persons.--The President or the President's 
     designee may also employ, appoint, or contract with 
     additional persons having such expertise as the President or 
     the President's designee believes will assist the Government 
     in carrying out the purposes of this Act.
       (c) Participation by Other Agency Personnel.--Other Federal 
     agencies may provide, at the request of the President's 
     designee, staff on detail from such agencies for purposes of 
     carrying out this Act.

     SEC. 4. BRIDGE FINANCING.

       (a) In General.--The President's designee shall authorize 
     and direct the disbursement of bridge loans or enter into 
     commitments for lines of credit to each automobile 
     manufacturer that submitted a plan to the Congress on 
     December 2, 2008 (hereafter in this Act referred to as an 
     ``eligible automobile manufacturer''), and has submitted a 
     request for such loan or commitment.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--All funds that are available 
     pursuant to section 10 to provide bridge financing or 
     commitments for lines of credit to eligible automobile 
     manufacturers, after taking into account the reservation of 
     funds under section 10(a)(2), shall be used for the purposes 
     described in section 10(a). No new funds shall be available 
     to any eligible automobile manufacturer for the purposes of 
     this section after the date on which the President's designee 
     has approved restructuring plan under section 6 for such 
     eligible automobile manufacturer.
       (c) Amount of Assistance.--The President's designee shall 
     authorize bridge loans or commitments for lines of credit to 
     each eligible automobile manufacturer in an amount that is 
     intended to facilitate the continued operations of the 
     eligible automobile manufacturer and to prevent the failure 
     of the eligible automobile manufacturer, consistent with the 
     plan submitted on December 2, 2008, and subject to available 
     funds.
       (d) Allocation.--The President's designee shall authorize 
     the disbursements or commitments under this section in 
     accordance with the allocation priorities set forth in 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 9.

     SEC. 5. RESTRUCTURING PROGRESS ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Establishment of Measures for Assessing Progress.--Not 
     later than January 1, 2009, the President's designee shall 
     determine appropriate measures for assessing the progress of 
     each eligible automobile manufacturer toward transforming the 
     plan submitted by such manufacturer to the Congress on 
     December 2, 2008, into the restructuring plan to be submitted 
     under section 6(b).
       (b) Evaluation of Progress on Basis of Restructuring 
     Progress Assessment Measures.--
       (1) In general.--The President's designee shall evaluate 
     the progress of each eligible automobile manufacturer toward 
     the development of a restructuring plan, on the basis of the 
     restructuring progress assessment measures established under 
     this section for such manufacturer.
       (2) Timing.--Each evaluation required under paragraph (1) 
     for any eligible automobile manufacturer shall be conducted 
     at

[[Page H10909]]

     the end of the 45-day period beginning on the date on which 
     the restructuring progress assessment measures were 
     established by the President's designee for such eligible 
     automobile manufacturer.

     SEC. 6. SUBMISSION OF PLANS.

       (a) Negotiated Plans.--
       (1) Facilitation.--
       (A) In general.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President's designee shall seek to facilitate 
     agreement on any restructuring plan to achieve and sustain 
     the long-term viability, international competitiveness, and 
     energy efficiency of an eligible automobile manufacturer, 
     negotiated and agreed to by representatives of interested 
     parties (in this Act referred to as a ``negotiated plan'') 
     with respect to any eligible automobile manufacturer.
       (B) Interested parties.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``interested party'' shall be construed broadly so as to 
     include all persons who have a direct financial interest in a 
     particular automobile manufacturer, including--
       (i) employees and retirees of the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer;
       (ii) trade unions;
       (iii) creditors;
       (iv) suppliers;
       (v) automobile dealers; and
       (vi) shareholders.
       (2) Actions of the president's designee.--
       (A) In general.--For the purpose of achieving a negotiated 
     plan, the President's designee may convene, chair, and 
     conduct formal and informal meetings, discussions, and 
     consultations, as appropriate, with interested parties of an 
     eligible automobile manufacturer.
       (B) Clarification.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act 
     shall not apply with respect to any of the activities 
     conducted or taken by the President's designee pursuant to 
     this Act.
       (b) Restructuring Plan.--Not later than March 31, 2009, 
     each eligible automobile manufacturer shall submit to the 
     President's designee a restructuring plan to achieve and 
     sustain the long-term viability, international 
     competitiveness, and energy efficiency of the eligible 
     automobile manufacturer (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``restructuring plan'') in accordance with this section. The 
     President's designee shall approve the restructuring plan if 
     the President's designee determines that the plan will result 
     in--
       (1) the repayment of all Government-provided financing, 
     consistent with the terms specified in section 11, or 
     otherwise agreed to;
       (2) the ability--
       (A) to comply with applicable fuel efficiency and emissions 
     requirements;
       (B) to commence domestic manufacturing of advanced 
     technology vehicles, as described in section 136 of the 
     Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-
     140; 42 U.S.C. 17013); and
       (C) to produce new and existing products and capacity, as 
     described in section 14;
       (3) the achievement of a positive net present value, using 
     reasonable assumptions and taking into account all existing 
     and projected future costs, including repayment of any 
     financial assistance provided pursuant to this Act;
       (4) efforts to rationalize costs, capitalization, and 
     capacity with respect to the manufacturing workforce, 
     suppliers, and dealerships of the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer;
       (5) proposals to restructure existing debt, including, 
     where appropriate, the conversion of debt to equity, to 
     improve the ability of the eligible automobile manufacturer 
     to raise private capital; and
       (6) a product mix and cost structure that is competitive in 
     the United States marketplace.
       (c) Extension of Negotiations and Plan Deadline.--
     Notwithstanding the time limitations in subsection (b), the 
     President's designee, upon making a determination that the 
     interested parties are negotiating in good faith, are making 
     significant progress, and that an additional period of time 
     would likely facilitate agreement on a negotiated plan, and 
     upon notification of the Congress, may extend for not longer 
     than 30 additional days the negotiation period under 
     subsection (b).

     SEC. 7. FINANCING FOR RESTRUCTURING.

       Upon approval by the President's designee of a 
     restructuring plan, the President's designee may provide 
     financial assistance to an eligible automobile manufacturer 
     to implement the restructuring plan.

     SEC. 8. DISAPPROVAL AND CALL OF LOAN.

       If the President's designee has not approved the 
     restructuring plan at the expiration of the period provided 
     in section 6 for submission and approval of the restructuring 
     plan, the President's designee shall call the loan or cancel 
     the commitment within 30 days, unless a restructuring plan is 
     approved within that period.

     SEC. 9. ALLOCATION.

       (a) Prioritizing Allocation.--The President's designee 
     shall prioritize allocation of the provision of financial 
     assistance under this Act to any eligible automobile 
     manufacturer, based on--
       (1) the necessity of the financial assistance for the 
     continued operation of the eligible automobile manufacturer;
       (2) the potential impact of the failure of the eligible 
     automobile manufacturer on the United States economy; and
       (3) the ability to utilize the financial assistance 
     optimally to satisfy the operational and long-term 
     restructuring requirements of the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer.
       (b) Order of Priority; Section 4.--For purposes of 
     allocating bridge loans or commitments pursuant to section 4, 
     the President's designee shall prioritize the considerations 
     set forth in subsection (a) in the following order: paragraph 
     (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3).
       (c) Order of Priority; Section 7.--For purposes of 
     allocating financial assistance for restructuring pursuant to 
     section 7, the President's designee shall prioritize the 
     considerations set forth in subsection (a) in the following 
     order: paragraph (3), paragraph (2), and paragraph (1).

     SEC. 10. FUNDING.

       (a) Financial Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Such sums are appropriated as are 
     necessary for the purpose of providing funds to support up to 
     $14,000,000,000 in loans under this Act. The Secretary of 
     Energy shall make available to the President's designee 
     $7,010,000,000 of funds made available under section 129 of 
     division A of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, 
     and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, relating to funding 
     for the manufacture of advanced technology vehicles, which 
     shall reduce the appropriation under this paragraph.
       (2) Reservation for certain purposes.--The Secretary of 
     Energy shall reserve $500,000,000 of the amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1) for purposes of section 136 of 
     the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 
     110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17013).
       (3) Continuing application process.--No provision of this 
     section shall be construed as prohibiting or limiting the 
     Secretary of Energy from processing applications for loans 
     under section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act 
     of 2007.
       (b) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Energy, sums as may be necessary for the 
     purpose of replenishing the funds made available to the 
     President's designee under subsection (a)(1).

     SEC. 11. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

       (a) Duration.--The duration of any loan made under this Act 
     shall be 7 years, or such longer period as the President's 
     designee may determine with respect to such loan.
       (b) Rate of Interest; Timing of Payments.--
       (1) Rate of interest.--The annual rate of interest for a 
     loan under this Act shall be--
       (A) 5 percent during the 5-year period beginning on the 
     date on which the President's designee disburses the loan; 
     and
       (B) 9 percent after the end of the period described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       (2) Timing of payments.--Payments of interest on loans 
     under this Act shall be made semiannually.
       (c) No Prepayment Penalty.--A loan made under this Act 
     shall be prepayable without penalty at any time.
       (d) Information Access.--As a condition for the receipt of 
     any financial assistance made under this Act, an eligible 
     automobile manufacturer shall agree--
       (1) to allow the President's designee to examine any books, 
     papers, records, or other data of the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer, and those of any subsidiary, affiliate, or 
     entity holding an ownership interest of 50 percent or more of 
     such automobile manufacturer, that may be relevant to the 
     financial assistance, including compliance with the terms of 
     a loan or any conditions imposed under this Act; and
       (2) to provide in a timely manner any information requested 
     by the President's designee, including requiring any officer 
     or employee of the eligible automobile manufacturer, any 
     subsidiary, affiliate, or entity referred to in paragraph (1) 
     with respect to such manufacturer, or any person having 
     possession, custody, or care of the reports and records 
     required under paragraph (1), to appear before the 
     President's designee at a time and place requested and to 
     provide such books, papers, records, or other data, as 
     requested, as may be relevant or material.
       (e) Oversight of Transactions and Financial Condition.--
       (1) Duty to inform.--During the period in which any loan 
     extended under this Act remains outstanding, the eligible 
     automobile manufacturer which received such loan shall 
     promptly inform the President's designee of--
       (A) any asset sale, investment, contract, commitment, or 
     other transaction proposed to be entered into by such 
     eligible automobile manufacturer that has a value in excess 
     of $100,000,000; and
       (B) any other material change in the financial condition of 
     such eligible automobile manufacturer.
       (2) Authority of the president's designee.--During the 
     period in which any loan extended under this Act remains 
     outstanding, the President's designee may--
       (A) review any asset sale, investment, contract, 
     commitment, or other transaction described in paragraph (1); 
     and
       (B) prohibit the eligible automobile manufacturer which 
     received the loan from consummating any such proposed sale, 
     investment, contract, commitment, or other transaction, if 
     the President's designee determines that consummation of such 
     transaction would be inconsistent with or detrimental to the 
     long-term viability of the eligible automobile manufacturer.

[[Page H10910]]

       (3) Procedures.--The President's designee may establish 
     procedures for conducting any review under this subsection.
       (f) Consequences for Failure To Comply.--The terms of any 
     financial assistance made under this Act shall provide that 
     if--
       (1) an evaluation by the President's designee under section 
     5(b) demonstrates that the eligible automobile manufacturer 
     which received the financial assistance has failed to make 
     adequate progress towards meeting the restructuring progress 
     assessment measures established by the President's designee 
     under section 5(a) with respect to such recipient;
       (2) after March 31, 2009, the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer which received the financial assistance fails to 
     submit an acceptable restructuring plan under section 6(b), 
     or fails to comply with any conditions or requirement 
     applicable under this Act or applicable fuel efficiency and 
     emissions requirements; or
       (3) after a restructuring plan of an eligible automobile 
     manufacturer has been approved by the President's designee, 
     the auto manufacturer fails to make adequate progress in the 
     implementation of the plan, as determined by the President's 
     designee,
     the repayment of any loan may be accelerated to such earlier 
     date or dates as the President's designee may determine and 
     any other financial assistance may be cancelled by the 
     President's designee.

     SEC. 12. TAXPAYER PROTECTION.

       (a) Warrants.--
       (1) In general.--The President's designee may not provide 
     any loan under this Act, unless the President's designee, or 
     such department or agency as is designated for such purpose 
     by the President, receives from the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer--
       (A) in the case of an eligible automobile manufacturer, the 
     securities of which are traded on a national securities 
     exchange, a warrant giving the right to the President's 
     designee to receive nonvoting common stock or preferred stock 
     in such eligible automobile manufacturer, or voting stock, 
     with respect to which the President's designee agrees not to 
     exercise voting power, as the President's designee determines 
     appropriate; or
       (B) in the case of an eligible automobile manufacturer 
     other than one described in subparagraph (A), a warrant for 
     common or preferred stock, or an instrument that is the 
     economic equivalent of such a warrant in the holding company 
     of the eligible automobile manufacturer, or any company that 
     controls a majority stake in the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer, as determined by the President's designee.
       (2) Amount.--
       (A) In general.--The warrants or instruments described in 
     paragraph (1) shall have a value equal to 20 percent of the 
     aggregate amount of all loans provided to the eligible 
     automobile manufacturer under this Act. Such warrants or 
     instruments shall entitle the Government to purchase--
       (i) nonvoting common stock, up to a maximum amount of 20 
     percent of the issued and outstanding common stock of --

       (I) the eligible automobile manufacturer; or
       (II) in the case of an eligible automobile manufacturer, 
     the securities of which are not traded on a national 
     securities exchange, a holding company or company that 
     controls a majority of the stock thereof (in this section 
     referred to as the ``warrant common''); and

       (ii) preferred stock having an aggregate liquidation 
     preference equal to 20 percent of such aggregate loan amount, 
     less the value of common stock available for purchase under 
     the warrant common (in this section referred to as the 
     ``warrant preferred'').
       (B) Common stock warrant price.--The exercise price on a 
     warrant or instrument described in paragraph (1) shall be--
       (i) the 15-day moving average, as of December 2, 2008, of 
     the market price of the common stock of the eligible 
     automobile manufacturer which received any loan under this 
     Act; or
       (ii) in the case of an eligible automobile manufacturer, 
     the securities of which are not traded on a national 
     securities exchange, the economic equivalent of the market 
     price described in clause (i), as determined by the 
     President's designee.
       (C) Terms of preferred stock warrant.--
       (i) In general.--The initial exercise price for the 
     preferred stock warrant shall be $0.01 per share or such 
     greater amount as the corporate charter may require as the 
     par value per share of the warrant preferred. The Government 
     shall have the right to immediately exercise the warrants.
       (ii) Redemption.--The warrant preferred may be redeemed at 
     any time after exercise of the preferred stock warrant at 100 
     percent of its issue price, plus any accrued and unpaid 
     dividends.
       (iii) Other terms and conditions.--Other terms and 
     conditions of the warrant preferred shall be determined by 
     the President's designee to protect the interests of 
     taxpayers.
       (3) Application of other provisions of law.--Except as 
     otherwise provided in this section, the requirements for the 
     purchase of warrants under section 113(d)(2) of the Emergency 
     Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A of Public Law 
     110-343) shall apply to any warrant or instrument described 
     in paragraph (1), including the antidilution protection 
     provisions therein.
       (b) Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance.--
       (1) In general.--During the period in which any financial 
     assistance under this Act remains outstanding, the eligible 
     automobile manufacturer which received such assistance shall 
     be subject to--
       (A) the standards established by the President's designee 
     under paragraph (2); and
       (B) the provisions of section 162(m)(5) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, as applicable.
       (2) Standards required.--The President's designee shall 
     require any eligible automobile manufacturer which received 
     any financial assistance under this Act to meet appropriate 
     standards for executive compensation and corporate 
     governance.
       (3) Specific requirements.--The standards established under 
     paragraph (2) shall include--
       (A) limits on compensation that exclude incentives for 
     senior executive officers of an eligible automobile 
     manufacturer which received assistance under this Act to take 
     unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of 
     such manufacturer during the period that the loan is 
     outstanding;
       (B) a provision for the recovery by such automobile 
     manufacturer of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a 
     senior executive officer based on statements of earnings, 
     gains, or other criteria that are later found to be 
     materially inaccurate;
       (C) a prohibition on such automobile manufacturer making 
     any golden parachute payment to a senior executive officer 
     during the period that the loan is outstanding;
       (D) a prohibition on such automobile manufacturer paying or 
     accruing any bonus or incentive compensation during the 
     period that the loan is outstanding to the 25 most highly-
     compensated employees; and
       (E) a prohibition on any compensation plan that would 
     encourage manipulation of such automobile manufacturer's 
     reported earnings to enhance the compensation of any of its 
     employees.
       (4) Divestiture.--During the period in which any financial 
     assistance provided under this Act to any eligible automobile 
     manufacturer is outstanding, the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer may not own or lease any private passenger 
     aircraft, or have any interest in such aircraft, except that 
     such eligible automobile manufacturer shall not be treated as 
     being in violation of this provision with respect to any 
     aircraft or interest in any aircraft that was owned or held 
     by the manufacturer immediately before receiving such 
     assistance, as long as the recipient demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the President's designee that all reasonable 
     steps are being taken to sell or divest such aircraft or 
     interest.
       (5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (A) Senior executive officer.--The term ``senior executive 
     officer'' means an individual who is 1 of the top 5 most 
     highly paid executives of a public company, whose 
     compensation is required to be disclosed pursuant to the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and any regulations issued 
     thereunder, and non-public company counterparts.
       (B) Golden parachute payment.--The term ``golden parachute 
     payment'' means any payment to a senior executive officer for 
     departure from a company for any reason, except for payments 
     for services performed or benefits accrued.
       (c) Prohibition on Payment of Dividends.--Except with 
     respect to obligations owed pursuant to law to any 
     nonaffiliated party or any existing contract with any 
     nonaffiliated party in effect as of December 2, 2008, no 
     dividends or distributions of any kind, or the economic 
     equivalent thereof (as determined by the President's 
     designee), may be paid by any eligible automobile 
     manufacturer which receives financial assistance under this 
     Act, or any holding company or company that controls a 
     majority stake in the eligible automobile manufacturer, while 
     such financial assistance is outstanding.
       (d) Other Interests Subordinated.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of an eligible automobile 
     manufacturer which received a loan under this Act, to the 
     extent permitted by the terms of any obligation, liability, 
     or debt of the eligible automobile manufacturer in effect as 
     of December 2, 2008, any other obligation of such eligible 
     automobile manufacturer shall be subordinate to such loan, 
     and such loan shall be senior and prior to all obligations, 
     liabilities, and debts of the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer, and such eligible automobile manufacturer shall 
     provide to the Government, all available security and 
     collateral against which the loans under this Act shall be 
     secured.
       (2) Applicability in certain cases.--In the case of an 
     eligible automobile manufacturer referred to in paragraph 
     (1), the securities of which are not traded on a national 
     securities exchange, a loan under this Act to the eligible 
     automobile manufacturer shall--
       (A) be treated as a loan to any holding company of, or 
     company that controls a majority stake in, the eligible 
     automobile manufacturer; and
       (B) be senior and prior to all obligations, liabilities, 
     and debts of any such holding company or company that 
     controls a majority stake in the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer.
       (e) Additional Taxpayer Protections.--
       (1) Discharge.--A discharge under title 11, United States 
     Code, shall not discharge an eligible automobile 
     manufacturer, or any successor in interest thereto, from any 
     debt for financial assistance received pursuant to this Act.

[[Page H10911]]

       (2) Exemption.--Any financial assistance provided to an 
     eligible automobile manufacturer under this Act shall be 
     exempt from the automatic stay established by section 362 of 
     title 11, United States Code.
       (3) Interested parties.--Notwithstanding any provision of 
     title 11, United States Code, any interest in property or 
     equity rights of the United States arising from financial 
     assistance provided to an eligible automobile manufacturer 
     under this Act shall remain unaffected by any plan of 
     reorganization, except as the United States may agree to in 
     writing.

     SEC. 13. OVERSIGHT AND AUDITS.

       (a) Comptroller General Oversight.--
       (1) Scope of oversight.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall conduct ongoing oversight of the 
     activities and performance of the President's designee.
       (2) Conduct and administration of oversight.--
       (A) GAO presence.--The President's designee shall provide 
     to the Comptroller General appropriate space and facilities 
     for purposes of this subsection.
       (B) Access to records.--To the extent otherwise consistent 
     with law, the Comptroller General shall have access, upon 
     request, to any information, data, schedules, books, 
     accounts, financial records, reports, files, electronic 
     communications, or other papers, things, or property 
     belonging to or in use by the President's designee, at such 
     reasonable time as the Comptroller General may request. The 
     Comptroller General shall be afforded full facilities for 
     verifying transactions with the balances or securities held 
     by depositaries, fiscal agents, and custodians. The 
     Comptroller General may make and retain copies of such books, 
     accounts, and other records as the Comptroller General deems 
     appropriate.
       (3) Reporting.--The Comptroller General shall submit 
     reports of findings under this section to Congress, regularly 
     and not less frequently than once every 60 days. The 
     Comptroller General may also submit special reports under 
     this subsection, as warranted by the findings of its 
     oversight activities.
       (b) Special Inspector General.--It shall be the duty of the 
     Special Inspector General established under section 121 of 
     Public Law 110-343 to conduct, supervise, and coordinate 
     audits and investigations of the President's designee in 
     addition to the duties of the Special Inspector General under 
     such section and for such purposes. The Special Inspector 
     General shall also have the duties, responsibilities, and 
     authorities of inspectors general under the Inspector General 
     Act of 1978, including section 6 of such Act. In the event 
     that the Office of the Special Inspector General is 
     terminated, the Inspector General of the Department of the 
     Treasury shall assume the responsibilities of the Special 
     Inspector General under this subsection.
       (c) Access to Records of Borrowers by GAO.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, during the period in which any 
     financial assistance provided under this Act is outstanding, 
     the Comptroller General of the United States shall have 
     access, upon request, to any information, data, schedules, 
     books, accounts, financial records, reports, files, 
     electronic communications, or other papers, things, or 
     property belonging to or in use by the eligible automobile 
     manufacturer, and any subsidiary, affiliate, or entity 
     holding an ownership interest of 50 percent or more of such 
     eligible automobile manufacturer (collectively referred to in 
     this section as ``related entities''), and to any officer, 
     director, or other agent or representative of the eligible 
     automobile manufacturer and its related entities, at such 
     reasonable times as the Comptroller General may request. The 
     Comptroller General may make and retain copies of such books, 
     accounts, and other records as the Comptroller General deems 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 14. AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS' STUDY ON POTENTIAL 
                   MANUFACTURING OF TRANSIT VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Each eligible automobile manufacturer 
     which receives financial assistance under this Act shall 
     conduct an analysis of potential uses of any excess 
     production capacity (especially those of former sport utility 
     vehicle producers) to make vehicles for sale to public 
     transit agencies, including--
       (1) the current and projected demand for bus and rail cars 
     by American public transit agencies;
       (2) the potential growth for both sales and supplies to 
     such agencies in the short, medium, and long term;
       (3) a description of existing ``Buy America'' provisions, 
     and data provided by the Federal Transit Administration 
     regarding the use or request of waivers from such provisions; 
     and
       (4) any recommendations as to whether such actions would 
     result in a business line that makes sense for the automobile 
     manufacturer.
       (b) GAO Review and Report.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall review the analyses conducted under this 
     section, and shall provide reports thereon to the Congress 
     and the President's designee.

     SEC. 15. REPORTING AND MONITORING.

       (a) Reporting on Consummation of Loans.--The President's 
     designee shall submit a report to the Congress on each bridge 
     loan made under section 4 not later than 5 days after the 
     date of the consummation of such loan.
       (b) Reporting on Restructuring Progress Assessment 
     Measures.--The President's designee shall submit a report to 
     the Congress on the restructuring progress assessment 
     measures established for each manufacturer under section 5(a) 
     not later than 10 days after establishing the restructuring 
     progress assessment measures.
       (c) Reporting on Evaluations.--The President's designee 
     shall submit a report to the Congress containing the detailed 
     findings and conclusions of the President's designee in 
     connection with the evaluation of an eligible automobile 
     manufacturer under section 5(b).
       (d) Reporting on Consequences for Failure to Comply.--The 
     President's designee shall submit a report to the Congress on 
     the exercise of a right under section 11(f) to accelerate 
     indebtedness of an eligible automobile manufacturer under 
     this Act or to cancel any other financial assistance provided 
     to such eligible automobile manufacturer, and the facts and 
     circumstances on which such exercise was based, before the 
     end of the 10-day period beginning on the date of the 
     exercise of the right.
       (e) Monitoring.--The President's designee shall monitor the 
     use of loan funds received by eligible automobile 
     manufacturers under this Act, and shall report to Congress 
     once every 90 days (beginning 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act) on the progress of the ability of the 
     recipient of the loan to continue operations and proceed with 
     restructuring processes that restore the financial viability 
     of the recipient and promote environmental sustainability.

     SEC. 16. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON LACK OF PROGRESS TOWARD 
                   ACHIEVING AN ACCEPTABLE NEGOTIATED PLAN.

       (a) Authority To Facilitate a Negotiated Plan.--At any such 
     time as the President's designee determines that action is 
     necessary to avoid disruption to the economy or to achieve a 
     negotiated plan, the President's designee shall submit to 
     Congress a report outlining any additional powers and 
     authorities necessary to facilitate the completion of a 
     negotiated plan required under section 6.
       (b) Impediments to Achieving Negotiated Plans.--If the 
     President's designee determines, on the basis of an 
     evaluation by the President's designee of the progress being 
     made by an eligible automobile manufacturer toward meeting 
     the restructuring progress assessment measures established 
     under section 5, that adequate progress is not being made 
     toward achieving a negotiated plan by March 31, 2009, the 
     President's designee shall submit to Congress a report 
     detailing the impediments to achievement of a negotiated plan 
     by the eligible automobile manufacturer.

     SEC. 17. SUBMISSION OF PLAN TO CONGRESS BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   DESIGNEE.

       Upon submission of a report pursuant to section 16(b), the 
     President's designee shall provide to Congress a plan that 
     represents the judgement of the President's designee as to 
     the steps necessary to achieve the long-term viability, 
     international competitiveness, and energy efficiency of the 
     eligible automobile manufacturer, consistent with the factors 
     set forth in section 6(b), including through a negotiated 
     plan, a plan to be implemented by legislation, or a 
     reorganization pursuant to chapter 11 of title 11, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 18. GUARANTEE OF LEASES OF QUALIFIED TRANSPORTATION 
                   PROPERTY.

       (a) Guarantee.--Upon the request of a lessee of qualified 
     transportation property, the President's designee shall serve 
     as a guarantor with respect to all obligations of such lessee 
     with respect to leases of such qualified transportation 
     property. Such guarantee shall be on such terms and 
     conditions as are determined by the President's designee, not 
     later than 14 days after the date of enactment of this 
     section.
       (b) Recoupment of Payment of Claims.--
       (1) In general.--Any claims under this section in excess of 
     collateral held for the benefit of the President's designee 
     shall be paid from the General Fund of the Treasury out of 
     funds not otherwise appropriated.
       (2) Recoupment fee.--Subsequent to any payment made under 
     paragraph (1), the President's designee shall recoup amounts 
     paid under paragraph (1) by establishing a fee that is 
     sufficient to recoup the amount of the claim payment not 
     later than 3 years after the date of such claim payment from 
     any lessee or guarantor for whom the claim was paid or for 
     whom a guarantee was issued.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``qualified transportation property'' means 
     domestic property subject to a lease that was approved by the 
     Federal Transit Administration prior to January 1, 2006; and
       (2) the term ``guarantor'' includes, without limitation, 
     any guarantor, surety, and payment undertaker.

     SEC. 19. COORDINATION WITH OTHER LAWS.

       (a) In General.--No provision of this Act may be construed 
     as altering, affecting, or superseding--
       (1) the provisions of section 129 of division A of the 
     Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing 
     Appropriations Act, 2009, relating to funding for the 
     manufacture of advanced technology vehicles;
       (2) any existing authority to provide financial assistance 
     or liquidity for purposes of the day-to-day operations in the 
     ordinary course of business or research and development.
       (b) Limitation.--Except to provide bridge financing or to 
     implement a restructuring

[[Page H10912]]

     plan pursuant to this Act, no funds from the United States 
     Treasury may be used for the purpose of assisting an eligible 
     automobile manufacturer to achieve financial viability or 
     otherwise to avoid bankruptcy.
       (c) Authorization of Fiscal Year 2009 Cost of Living Salary 
     Adjustment for Justices and Judges.--Pursuant to section 140 
     of Public Law 97-92, justices and judges of the United States 
     are authorized during fiscal year 2009 to receive a salary 
     adjustment in accordance with section 461 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       (d) Antitrust Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (4), the 
     antitrust laws shall not apply to meetings, discussions, or 
     consultations among an eligible automobile manufacturer and 
     its interested parties for the purpose of achieving a 
     negotiated plan pursuant to section (6)(a)(2).
       (2) Exclusions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect 
     to price-fixing, allocating a market between competitors, 
     monopolizing (or attempting to monopolize) a market, or 
     boycotting.
       (3) Antitrust agency participation.--The Attorney General 
     of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission shall, 
     to the extent practicable, receive reasonable advance notice 
     of, and be permitted to participate in, each meeting, 
     discussion, or consultation described in paragraph (1).
       (4) Preservation of enforcement authority.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not be construed to preclude the Attorney General of 
     the United States or the Federal Trade Commission from 
     bringing an enforcement action under the antitrust laws for 
     injunctive relief.
       (5) Sunset.--Paragraph (1) shall apply only with respect to 
     meetings, discussions, or consultations that occur within the 
     3-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (6) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``antitrust laws''--
       (A) has the same meaning as in subsection (a) of the first 
     section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), except that 
     such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 45), to the extent that such section 5 applies 
     to unfair methods of competition; and
       (B) includes any provision of State law that is similar to 
     the laws referred to in subparagraph (A).

     SEC. 20. TREATMENT OF RESTRUCTURING FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING 
                   LIMITATIONS ON NET OPERATING LOSS CARRYFORWARDS 
                   AND CERTAIN BUILT-IN LOSSES.

       Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not 
     apply in the case of an ownership change resulting from this 
     Act or pursuant to a restructuring plan approved under this 
     Act.

     SEC. 21. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

       Amounts provided by this Act are designated as an emergency 
     requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to 
     section 204(a) of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1534, the bill 
is considered read.
  After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall be in order to consider 
the amendment printed in House Report 110-922 if offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) or his designee, which shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division 
of the question, shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I ask that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this bill and include extraneous remarks and material 
thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we consider this bill in a context, a context framed by 
the report last Friday of a massive loss of jobs in the American 
economy. This economy is in the worst shape that it has been in since 
the Great Depression.
  We are facing a double hit, a credit crisis brought on by a variety 
of factors, but resulting now in a serious lack of confidence on the 
part of investors and a deterioration in the physical parts of the 
economy, which have combined to cause a serious, deep recession.
  That is relevant because there have been suggestions that we could 
afford to allow the three domestically owned auto companies to founder, 
that there are other sources of automobiles, that they could be 
required to declare bankruptcy, to, therefore, not pay suppliers, to 
cut back substantially on money owed dealers, to reduce by large 
amounts the workforce and the compensation of the workforce, to take 
one of the major factors of the American economy and substantially 
reduce its economic impact.
  I think that would have been a mistake in any economic period, but to 
contemplate the severity of that blow to our economic activity at this 
time is to invite further deterioration of an economy that has already 
deteriorated beyond what people expected and beyond what the American 
people ought to have to tolerate.
  The bill is a limited bill. It is the product of a compromise, the 
terms of which were largely dictated by the President of the United 
States. I am struck, Mr. Speaker, by the lack of confidence that has 
been expressed on the Republican side of this House, not in the auto 
industry, but in George Bush and the people he has and will appoint.
  The amount of money here, $15 billion, is a loan. It is a loan far 
more likely to be repaid than many of the much larger amounts that the 
Bush administration and the Federal Reserve, working with them, have 
advanced to Citigroup and AIG and the number of other entities.
  It is $15 billion because the President said no new money, not even 
money from the $700 billion troubled assets fund, the TARP. This 
Congress voted a month or two ago, 2 months ago, to advance $25 billion 
to the auto industry to promote innovation, which everyone agrees is 
necessary. It wasn't just to the Big Three, it was to any applicant who 
was going to use this money to try to innovate.
  The President said, to our dismay, he would veto any legislation 
trying to keep the auto industry out of bankruptcy that used any funds 
other than that $25 billion that had already been voted for that 
purpose. The Speaker, to her credit, resisted what I think was a strong 
temptation to engage in a dispute with the President that would have 
killed any effort to get legislation and instead, perhaps to his 
surprise, she agreed with him and said we would live with that 
constraint.
  So the amount of money that is here is both in amount and, in short, 
exactly what George Bush wanted. This is an amount of money that George 
Bush told us we could make available.
  We have made it available in a form that makes it overwhelmingly 
likely that it will be repaid. It is a loan with the American 
Government in a super senior position in terms of repayment and where 
there were some potential problems with that because of clauses in 
other agreements, heavy collateral.
  So this $15 billion is very likely to be returned if the program 
fails. That's the worst case.
  We will have advanced $15 billion, we will get it back in 3 months 
because disaster cannot be averted, but we are not willing to say that 
disaster cannot be averted without trying.
  What this bill then says is the President of the United States, 
George Bush, shall designate an administration official to preside over 
a process of hard negotiation with all of those who have a share in 
this industry, the companies, of course, the bondholders, the workers, 
the suppliers and the auto dealers, and make it clear to them that if 
they are not willing and able to come together and reduce costs and put 
in place a program that makes it possible to envision a future in which 
more efficient cars are made and sold with a great likelihood of 
success, then not only will there be no more money than the $15 
billion, but the $15 billion will have to be repaid.
  Well, apparently my Republican colleagues, again, do not think that 
the Bush administration has within its ranks anyone capable, with all 
the help that they have been given, of beginning that process. Some 
have said, no, make them go bankrupt.
  There is nothing about bankruptcy that cannot be accomplished within 
the framework we have said except the ability to unilaterally say 
``no'' to this or that class of people who are owed money. All of the 
powers that you could accomplish in reorganization in a bankruptcy are 
given here, and the enforcement power is that the money will be 
withdrawn if this is not done and the entities will collapse.

[[Page H10913]]

  We have provisions in here that make it impossible, if the Bush 
administration and then the Obama administration coming after them, say 
so to have money that was, in part, provided by the American taxpayer, 
used to finance activity in other countries. That doesn't mean American 
investors should never be in other countries. It does mean that 
taxpayer dollars made available in these circumstances shouldn't go to 
other countries. Then the question is, then, well, why the haste? We 
are hastily reacting to very fast-moving events.
  A month ago it did not appear that the car companies would be in such 
dire straits. Car companies all over the world have been hurt by the 
credit crisis. Automobiles are paid for by credit. As credit has 
tightened up substantially, and as people have lost their jobs, there 
has been a greater than anticipated fall off in auto sales. Of course, 
the auto companies have made mistakes in the past, a lot of people in 
the industry have, including consumers.
  But we find that the rapid deterioration in the general economy, it 
hasn't caused the problem for the automakers, but it has exacerbated 
them and greatly shortened our time horizon.
  This bill is intended to keep them from going bankrupt between now 
and March 31. It does it in a way that will allow us to recapture the 
money if that effort fails. It does express the belief that, done 
properly, in conjunction with other things, things that could unstick 
the credit market, funds that we hope will be made available under the 
troubled assets program to auto dealers, who have a very real claim 
here, and we will be pushing for a program that will include them and 
funding be made available. Several Members of this House have spoken 
out strongly in favor of doing that.
  We believe it is possible, and likely, that as the economy gets 
better, and as they continue the movements they have already made 
towards cars that are likely to sell and be more energy efficient, that 
we can survive this.
  There are some Members who have consistently opposed any 
intervention, but this administration sent over $100 billion to AIG. 
Citigroup has been the recipient of very large amounts of money. I do 
not understand how people can have not made any effort to undo the 
administration's intervention with AIG, well over $100 billion, and 
then try and stop about one-seventh of that sum as a loan to the auto 
companies.
  Yes, credit and finance are important, but the physical work done by 
working class and middle-class Americans in auto companies, in car 
dealerships, in the small businesses that are other suppliers, 
cumulatively, are just as important. To give up now on the auto 
industry would be to condemn the American economy at one of its most 
vulnerable periods in our economic history to a degree of further hurt, 
and the American people deserve better.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, December 10, 2008.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Frank: This is to memorialize the provisions 
     in H.R. 7321, the ``Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring 
     Act,'' that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. In particular, there are several 
     provisions in section 12(d) and (e) that alter the normal 
     operation of the bankruptcy laws; section 19(c) provides the 
     annual cost-of-living salary adjustment for the federal 
     judiciary: and section 19(d) precludes private antitrust 
     suits regarding certain consultations between a covered 
     automaker and its employees, dealers, suppliers, and 
     creditors.
       In agreeing to be discharged from further consideration of 
     the bill, in order that it may proceed without delay to the 
     House floor for consideration, the Judiciary Committee does 
     not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in 
     this or similar legislation. We also reserve the right to 
     seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any 
     House-Senate conference involving this important legislation, 
     and would ask your support if such a request is made.
       I would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the 
     House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request, 
     and for the cooperative relationship between our two 
     committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                John Conyers, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we all recognize the 
importance of our domestic automobile industry. We understand that the 
bankruptcy of either GM or Chrysler would have a cascading effect on 
the other manufacturers. We understand that the suppliers, the auto 
part manufacturers could fail. We also understand that dealerships are 
at risk, millions of jobs, families in jeopardy.

                              {time}  1830

  And even though we all want the industry to succeed, I cannot support 
this plan because this plan is a plan to spend taxpayer money without 
any real promise or ability to return the industry to profitability. In 
my view, any aid for the automobile industry should be limited to 
transitional assistance as a part of a fundamental restructuring plan 
and should fully protect the taxpayer, and this legislation does not 
meet that standard.
  Some of the worst bills to come out of Congress are when we rush to 
judgment, and I fear that is exactly what we are doing here. Members 
have only had one or two hours to examine the text of this legislation. 
It was a measure which was the product of a closed-door negotiation 
between the Democratic Congress and the administration. It occurred 
outside the normal legislative process and the watchful eyes of the 
American people.
  I see several glaring omissions or flaws in my cursory examination. 
We are creating a new car czar to manage these three companies from 
Washington; not a CEO, but a car czar.
  Second, and this probably is the most troubling, this legislation 
actually imposes new and expensive mandates on our automobile 
companies. If they are in such bad shape that they need billions of 
dollars of taxpayer help, and we acknowledge that they are in bad 
shape, why are we imposing new, expensive mandates? This legislation, 
for instance, mandates that the companies comply with State laws that 
imposed inefficient and potentially excessive emissions standards 
instead of the more reasonable Federal laws. That cries in the face of 
logic under the circumstances.
  Third, this legislation imposes Federal Government management on the 
Big Three, the wisdom of Washington. It is clear that the management of 
these companies have made mistakes, many mistakes, but a solution to 
that to set up a command and control in Washington D.C. with a Federal 
bureaucrat attempting to run the domestic automobile industry is 
exactly the wrong solution.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad process and it is a bad bill and one I 
fear, as we have so often done with these bailouts, we will come to 
regret. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
note that I am surprised to hear my friend argue that the bankruptcy 
courts have more automotive expertise and engineering and finance and 
industrial policy expertise than is present in the whole Bush 
administration. I think he is too pessimistic about that and too much 
supportive of the bankruptcy process.
  Second, I would also just recall the very thoughtful remark of our 
colleague from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee, who noted that those who thought 
bankruptcy was a disaster for mortgages appear to see it as a panacea 
for automobiles. Many of us fail to see how that transformation took 
place.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Detroit (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Barney 
Frank and his entire Financial Services team and committee for the 
outstanding work they have done with this very difficult situation for 
the last month or so. Thank you, Barney, and for the full committee. 
The Michigan delegation in a bipartisan way worked feverishly to make 
this happen. Thank you very much.
  America is at a crossroads, a crossroads on whether America will be a 
first-rate country as we move through this century. Seventy years ago, 
my grandfather, as well as hundreds of others, came to this part of the 
country

[[Page H10914]]

from South Carolina to the midwest, to the manufacturing base of 
America, the base that built the middle-class in this country. Without 
the manufacturing, there would be no middle-class in America. Do we 
want to forsake that today? I hope not.
  The American automobile industry is the military equipment builders 
of our country, from World War II and every war thereafter, building 
the tanks, the ammunition, the body armor and the like. It will be a 
mistake for us if we don't preserve this industry.
  Three million-plus direct jobs with another 10 million from 
insurance, health care, security. You name it, those are 13.6 million 
Americans affected by this automobile industry. We must preserve it.
  The middle class is dwindling as we speak. With all the problems 
America has, this is not the time to kill, if you will, the only 
manufacturing base we have left in our country. We already yielded the 
electronics industry. We yielded the fabric and the garment industry. 
Manufacturing is one of the tools that can keep our country alive. I 
hope you will vote today and save this most vital industry.
  I mentioned my grandfather. I am the next generation after that. 
Because of the manufacturing industry, the automobile industry 
specifically, we have been able to send generations of young people who 
are now 40, 50, 60 years old to college, the manufacturing industry.
  Vote for this bill. Don't do it wrong. Let's do it right.
  Giving thanks to God, who is the power, force and director of my 
life, I thank the Democratic Leadership and my colleagues in the 
Michigan delegation for their continued hard work, objective analysis 
and hard questions for both automobile manufacturers and taxpayers. As 
an enthusiastic supporter of the automotive industry, I, along with the 
unanimous agreement of the Michigan delegation, seek a balanced, fair 
solution for American taxpayers, manufacturers, dealers, and suppliers 
to the automobile industry. A large part of that solution is this bill, 
crafted by Chairman Frank and Members of the House Financial Services 
Committee on which I once served. This bill will provide $15 billion in 
bridge loans to help struggling automakers survive while they prepare 
plans to restructure their companies to build more competitive, fuel-
efficient, and technologically-advanced vehicles. This assistance will 
not only help manufacturers, but it will help the workers, the dealers, 
the suppliers and the 13 million jobs that are directly and indirectly 
affected by the largest industry in our Nation--the automobile 
industry.
  In addition, this bill, which would amend current law, demands 
taxpayer protections such as limits to executive compensation, 
including a ban on so-called ``golden parachute'' payments, a 
prohibition on dividend payments over the life of the loans, rigorous 
independent oversight, and provisions for the government taking 
warrants and allowing the taxpayer to profit in any upside of the 
restructuring. This is a fair balance for both the manufacturers and 
American taxpayers. If the Big Three were to collapse, there would be a 
loss of personal income of close to $400 billion, with a combined loss 
of tax receipts of $156 billion, over 3 years, according to the Center 
for Automotive Research. With the interdependence of Mexico, Canada and 
the United States because of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA), this vastly underestimates the ultimate impact if the Big 
Three were to go bankrupt.
  With the recent loss of more than half a million jobs in one month, 
in our Nation, Federal assistance to the automotive industry is needed 
immediately for our economic, military, and energy security and safety. 
A government-supported restructuring of the auto industry is urgently 
needed for our economic, military and energy security. General Wesley 
Clark recently wrote that ``some economists question the wisdom of 
Washington's intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the 
automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the 
market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American 
automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a 
national security imperative.''
  This is an opportunity for Congress to do four things. One, it is an 
opportunity to get our country to energy security or energy 
independence. Two, it is a chance to ensure that, unlike our textile 
and electronics industry, to preserve and protect our manufacturing 
base, the last industry in which America still holds a slight but 
precarious lead. Three, it can be a way in which we get the 
manufacturers toward building the vehicles that Congress mandated that 
they build. Four, we can preserve the jobs and businesses of dealers 
and suppliers. In all of the discussions of saving the manufacturers, 
there has been little, if any, discussion to save the thousands of 
automobile dealers and suppliers to the automotive industry.
  Congress has been advocating that our country become either energy 
independent or have energy security. Indeed, President Richard Nixon 
challenged that our Nation become independent on foreign oil in the 
early 1970s. Although the automotive industry is in a crisis, this is 
truly an opportunity to start a major reorganization and reprogramming 
of the entire automotive industry. In less than 2 years, General Motors 
will produce the first practical all-electric motor vehicle. This is a 
welcome opportunity, and is a development that all Americans should 
embrace. By being the first to produce a battery that can get hundreds 
of miles per charge, the United States can be the first in this 
manufacturing technology. This will create thousands of green jobs, 
clean up the air, and make us less dependent on foreign sources of 
fuel. This achievement is right around the corner, as GM is set to 
bring the Chevy Volt to market in less than 2 years. In less than 10 
years, these batteries and fuel cells can be, and should be, built in 
the United States.
  Second, we need to preserve the automotive industry as it is the base 
of manufacturing in the United States. Second only to the strong faith 
that Americans have in one another is the strength of our economy. Our 
modern economy was built by companies like General Motors, Ford, and 
Chrysler. These are the companies that essentially built this country 
to victory in World War II and every military conflict we have had ever 
since. These companies not only built the tanks, the Jeeps, the trucks 
that support the women and men in our military, they often created the 
technologies that allow us to have navigational systems in our cars, 
brakes that last for thousands of miles, and protect our bodies in 
accidents. We cannot afford to lose this innovative intellectual 
property.
  The auto industry has come to the rescue, once again, for our women 
and men in the military. The Humvee, the Stryker, and the mine-
resistant ambush vehicles, and the like are built primarily in Michigan 
but entirely in the United States. As General Wesley Clark said, ``the 
lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their 
tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive 
industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn't have to divert 
much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous 
automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met.'' Our 
economy and our troops cannot survive the loss of the automotive 
industry.
  Third, the manufacturers know what is at stake today. It is not only 
their individual survival, but whether our country suffers a recession 
or a depression. We cannot afford, at this perilous time in our 
economy, the shut down of any company. Any form of bankruptcy would 
tear what little confidence consumers have in the auto industry to 
shreds by decimating consumer demand and forcing thousands of suppliers 
who need the cash flow from the auto manufacturers into immediate 
default. This legislation would allow time and cash for the 
manufacturers to make the necessary and needed change in their 
vehicles, again mandated by Congress, for the long-term energy self-
sufficiency and environmental protection we seek. This legislation does 
just that.
  One in every 10 jobs in the United States is somehow linked to the 
automotive industry. After the purchase of a home, the purchase of an 
automobile is the largest purchase for the overwhelming majority of 
America's consumers. Michigan, specifically my home city of Detroit, 
has been the home of the automotive industry for decades. More than 13 
million jobs are directly or indirectly rely on the automotive 
industry. The losses of the automotive industry have been massive. In 
2005, General Motors, which is headquartered in my Congressional 
District, lost more than $5.6 billion on its North America operations 
alone, with Ford losing $5.5 billion during the same period of time. 
GM's share of the market, which used to be 36 percent in 1990, had 
shrunk to 26 percent in 2005. Ford's 1990 share of the market, which 
was 24 percent, was 17 percent 2 years ago. Production for Ford and GM 
has dropped 26 percent since 1999.
  In the wake of these losses, Michigan and our country have lost a 
significant number of jobs. Both GM and Ford announced a series of 
plant closings in North America, with an estimated loss of 60,000 jobs 
through layoffs and early retirement buy-outs. According to the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, in 2005 the automotive industry lost a total of 
215,000 jobs, and stated that ``industry employment is headed downward 
and is not likely to recover for several years.'' This situation does 
not get any better for those related industries supplying automobile 
parts, providing insurance for automobiles, or selling vehicles 
wholesale or retail.
  While domestic manufacturers are not entirely blameless for these 
losses, a significant factor has been the way in which China has

[[Page H10915]]

done business with the Big Three. One of the U.S./China Commission's 
conclusions, to which I testified 2 years ago, was ``the many subsidies 
provided by the Chinese government to the auto industry will quickly 
distort the nature of the market. This will be true especially in the 
United States, where markets are most open. The Chinese challenge to 
the U.S. auto industry is a significant assault on American 
manufacturing, and that assault is increasing in magnitude and in 
pace.'' Are we willing to concede to other countries, perhaps China, 
our manufacturing base?
  Finally, I am worried about the health of automobile dealers and 
suppliers, specifically ethnic minority automobile dealers and 
suppliers. It is my understanding from experts in the field that up to 
75 percent of ethnic minority new car dealers, if they do not receive 
financial assistance within 60 days, will fail. In a meeting two weeks 
ago with the Speaker and the House Democratic leadership, the 
manufacturers estimated that more than 700 dealers are expected to 
close their doors before the end of the year. In all of this discussion 
about helping the manufacturers, it is only fair that some of this help 
go directly to the ethnic minority dealers and suppliers who are the 
backbone of their communities and of the automotive industry. Ethnic 
dealers and suppliers are first generation dealers and suppliers and 
simply do not have the economy of scale of their majority counterparts. 
As we move forward with this legislation, it is my hope that we provide 
immediate assistance to those who most need it--ethnic minority 
automobile dealers and suppliers.
  We face tough times. The automotive industry can succeed, with the 
help of Congress, once again. The automotive industry has made 
mistakes, and all of the manufacturers present will tell you that I 
have worked with them to improve their product, outreach, and business 
model. Here, in Washington, DC, it is often hard for legislators to 
truly appreciate how difficult life is for the rest of America. In 
Michigan, we face record foreclosures, unemployment and job loss from 
manufacturing. We must save the automobile industry for the future of 
not only the industry but for the state of Michigan and our country. We 
must not repeat the mistakes we made in giving away our textile and 
electronics industry to other countries. We must do all we can to 
retain this vital segment of America.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) control my time and that he be able to 
yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BACHUS. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It doesn't 
make a whole lot of sense. But I am concerned that we are narrowed down 
on a problem of the car industry, which is a significant problem, but 
we are dealing with $15 billion here. But if you look at the grand 
problem we have, it is much, much bigger, and it seems like we don't 
pay much attention to it.
  The problems that we are facing today and the problems that we have 
been trying to solve in these last 6 months were predictable. It had 
been building for a good many years. We can date it back to 1971. We 
have had a financial bubble building, so there were many who predicted 
that the climax would be exactly as we are witnessing.
  But we don't seem to want to go back and find out how financial 
bubbles form and why they burst. Instead, we just carry on doing the 
same old thing and never look back. We spend more money, we run up more 
debt, we print more money, and we think that is going to solve the 
problem that was created by spending too much money, running up debt, 
printing too much money. And here we are today, we are talking about 
tinkering on the edges without dealing with the big problem.
  The Federal Reserve has literally created over $2 trillion here in 
the last several months, at least in obligations, and that is outside 
the realm of the Congress. We don't even audit the Federal Reserve. 
They create this money, and when the Fed Chairman comes before our 
committee and we ask, well, where did you dispose of this $2 trillion 
that you have created recently, he says well, it is not your business. 
That is not necessary. Under the law, he doesn't even have to tell us.
  So this is how out of control our problem is. Sure, there is a lot of 
debt in the economy, and once a government or a corporation gets an 
excessive amount of debt, it is never paid for. So, yes, we can 
transfer the debt to others.
  We are dealing with only finding victims. We cannot get rid of the 
debt, whether it is our national debt or whether it is corporate debt, 
but we have to put it on somebody else. We need to look at the cause of 
these bubbles, and it has to do with monetary policy and the Federal 
Reserve system.
  Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that Congress bears much culpability for 
the current condition of the United States auto industry, and therefore 
Congress should act to help that industry. We should be repealing 
costly regulations we have imposed on domestic auto manufactures. 
Congress should also be considering legislation like H.R. 7273 and H.R. 
7278, which reduces taxes on American consumers to make it easier for 
them to purchase American automobiles.
  Unfortunately, instead of repealing regulations and cutting taxes, 
Congress is nationalizing the automakers by giving them access to $14 
billion of taxpayer funds in return for giving the federal government 
control over the management of these firms. Mr. Speaker, the federal 
government has neither the competence nor the constitutional authority 
to tell private companies, such as automakers, how to run their 
businesses. Yet, the bailout proposal forces automobile manufacturers 
to submit their business plans for the approval of a federal ``car 
czar.'' This czar will not only have the authority to approve the 
automakers' restructuring plan, but will also monitor implementation of 
the plans. The czar will also be able to stop transactions that are 
``inconsistent with the companies' long-term viability.'' Of course, 
the czar has the sole authority to determine what transactions are 
``inconsistent with the companies' long-term viability.''
  I would have thought that failed experiments with central planning 
and government control of business that wrought so much harm in the 
last century would have taught my colleagues the folly of making 
businesses obey politicians and bureaucrats instead of heeding the 
wishes of consumers, employees, and stockholders.
  The alternative proposal is less costly to the taxpayer; therefore I 
will vote for it if offered as a motion to recommit. However, I am 
troubled that the proposal endorses the notion that the federal 
government should play both a financial and managerial role in 
restoring the American automobile industry. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame 
that we are not given a chance to vote for a true free-market approach; 
instead we are asked to choose between two types of government 
interference with the market.
  Providing this $14 billion in loan guarantees will contribute to the 
already fragile economy by increasing the federal debt and thus 
creating either increased inflation or increased taxes. Mr. Speaker, I 
ask my colleagues to consider how many businesses will not be started, 
jobs will not be created, and consumer desires will remain unfulfilled 
because the resources to start those business and create those jobs 
were taken from the private sector for the auto bailout. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this unconstitutional bill that will further the 
growth of government and damage the American economy. Instead, Congress 
should help the American auto industry, and all American business, by 
cutting taxes and regulations.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the 
dean of the House and a great expert over time on the auto industry, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bridge loan. Without this bridge, 
we are going to fall into the deepest calamity this country has seen 
since the Great Depression. I call on you to note that one in seven 
jobs in this country is in the auto industry. Put these companies into 
bankruptcy and you will bankrupt the entire industry, from the dealers 
to the suppliers to the small businessmen who depend upon this. That is 
how bad the situation is. All we ask is a chance to save the industry 
and to save the millions of Americans

[[Page H10916]]

who work there and who contribute to the growth of this country.
  I saw the Depression. I know what happened: people standing on the 
corners without hope, somewhere around 33 percent of Americans without 
jobs. That is where we are going back to if we don't do something about 
this, and I don't want to hear any of my colleagues say, Dingell, we 
didn't know what was going to happen. All we thought was if we put them 
into bankruptcy, everything would be fine.
  Well, it won't. Bankruptcy will simply take down every dealer, every 
supplier and everybody who is in the auto industry, including the three 
major companies, and it will destroy the industrial base of the United 
States, what little remains.
  I am here to tell you, this is too big a disaster for us to invite. 
Imagine a nation with double digit unemployment. That is what we are 
going to be talking about. And I ask you, how can you turn over $1.2 
billion to the Wall Streeters who brought about this calamity when you 
do nothing?
  Invest in America. Support this legislation, which has been 
brilliantly handled by the chairman of committee, to whom I express my 
praise and my gratitude for his leadership, and I thank our Speaker for 
what it is she has done in making this possible.
  This bill is salvation. Vote against it and look forward to a 
terrible calamity. Vote for it and give hope to millions of Americans 
who desperately need it and who are now existing on the edge of both 
terror, want, deprivation and worry of the most gross sort.
  If you want to see other industries collapse, if you want to see what 
is left of the housing industry die, if you want to see other 
industries in this country suffer and hurt, vote against this bill. 
That is what has happened.
  I urge my colleagues, vote for this bill. It is hope. It is salvation 
for this country. It is the future of this country. Yes, it is going to 
cost more and we are going to have to do it. But, again, I remind you, 
invest in America. Invest in the future of your people. Invest in the 
future and the hopes and the dreams and the desires of Americans.
  Without that, all I can say to you is a terrible disaster looms. Let 
us at all costs prevent that. Let us at all costs see to it that we 
protect the future, the hopes, the dreams of millions of hardworking 
Americans, without whom there is no hope for this country.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of the worst financial crisis since 
the Great Depression. What is at stake today is nothing less than the 
livelihoods of millions of American workers. They are counting on us 
today to pass legislation that will give the domestic automakers the 
loans they need to survive this financial crisis. If we fail to act we 
will plunge this nation further into recession, add hundreds of 
thousands to the employment rolls in a matter of weeks, and deliver a 
crippling blow to the manufacturing sector from which it may never 
recover. As it stated on the cover of a special edition of the Detroit 
Free Press that was delivered to every Member's office, now is the time 
for us to ``Invest in America.''
  The legislation we are voting on has been described as offering a 
``bridge loan'' to the domestic automakers. It is important to 
recognize where this bridge will lead us, and the consequences that 
will befall our nation if we fail to act. General Motors, Ford, and 
Chrysler have made significant investments into new vehicle 
technologies, such as plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. If we 
allow the automakers to continue to operate, and use the oversight 
authority provided for in this bill to guide them quickly towards the 
production of more fuel efficient vehicles, we can create the next 
generation of green manufacturing jobs here in this country. If the Big 
3 fail we will have ceded these jobs to our competitors in China, South 
Korea, and Japan. These loans offer not just a bridge to solvency for 
the Big 3, but a bridge to a more vibrant and productive economy for 
all of us.
  Protecting the economy was supposed to be the reason we acted to 
rescue Wall Street and save failing financial institutions. According 
to statistics released by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, more than $650 billion has been lent to financial institutions 
since the beginning of this financial crisis, and an additional $350 
billion has been used to purchase private assets. This is in addition 
to the more than $200 billion in TARP funds that the Treasury 
Department has used to shore up financial institutions. It is 
unconscionable that approximately $1.2 trillion has now been sent to 
Wall Street, but there are those who would object to spending $15 
billion to save 3 million blue collar jobs.
  Before you cast your vote today, I would urge all of you to consider 
what this country would look like without a domestic automobile 
industry. Ask yourselves how many automobile dealerships or parts 
suppliers operate in your District, and how many of them will be forced 
to follow the Big 3 into bankruptcy. Imagine what a nation with double 
digit employment rates will look like, and what burden that will place 
on the states and on Federal Government. Ask yourselves why every other 
industrialized country is taking steps to provide support for their own 
automakers, and why they seem to place a higher value on good paying 
middle class jobs than we do. I urge my colleagues to consider these 
questions, and to support the legislation before us today.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a dear friend, a 
great protector of our Constitution, one of the great champions of the 
taxpayer, the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Texas for 
yielding. It is an enormous challenge to follow a distinguished 
gentleman, the dean of the House from Michigan, who comes and asks us 
to invest in America. Indeed, all of us feel passionately about the 
investors and, more importantly, the workers, not just in Michigan, but 
around the country, that are currently dependent on the automobile 
industry in America.
  But, as the gentleman from Michigan pleaded we ought to invest in 
America, the truth of the matter is the reason we are here tonight is 
that nobody in their right mind is willing to invest their own money in 
a failed and antiquated model. So they are asking Congress to 
confiscate money from taxpayers to make an investment.
  That is what this is about. It is a short-term bailout so we can get 
until March so that much, much more money will be spent bailing out 
these failed and antiquated industries.
  There are people in Florida hurting, not just in the automobile 
industry. We have got automobile dealers and salespeople and parts 
manufacturers. Our real estate industry is devastated, our time share 
industry, our theme park industry, our hotels and motels and 
restaurants.
  But the truth of the matter is, micromanaging a business from 
Washington is the supreme act of hubris. It will never work. No matter 
how much the administration, no matter how much the Congress wants to 
do the right thing, they will hurt us.
  110 years ago, the United States Congress probably felt bad for 
people that manufactured buggy whips and horse carriages. We could have 
bailed them out. We could have created a buggy whip and horse carriage 
czar. It would not have helped America move towards prosperity and 
freedom. And, unfortunately, this is a terrible idea that will punish 
taxpayers and just prolong the agony. I ask us to vote for freedom and 
free markets and reject this bailout.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think we've gotten an 
imbalance of time here, so if it is all right with the gentleman from 
Texas, I would reserve and defer to him for another speaker or two to 
even out the time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller.)
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, you know, after Hurricane 
Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, this Congress passed well over $133 
billion of assistance to that region, and we did so because Americans 
were hurting and they needed assistance. And we also did it because 
that region was vital to our energy industry that plays such a critical 
role in our national economy.
  And I will also note that Americans, those taxpayers from my home 
State of Michigan and across this great Nation, contributed to that 
effort.
  Now our industrial economy has been hit by a Category 5 economic 
hurricane brought on by the meltdown in the financial industry. And 
this has been a disaster which has hit my State hard, and people are 
hurting all across America. Credit is simply not available to enough 
consumers to keep the cash flow our automakers need and, because of 
this, millions of jobs across this Nation are at risk. And I cannot 
believe that this Congress will allow the backbone of our manufacturing 
and industrial sector to be swept away, because

[[Page H10917]]

I believe that most Members will agree that America cannot be a great 
Nation without a strong industrial base.
  Think about the millions of Americans who are asking us to do the 
right thing, and support this vital legislation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would continue to reserve.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, the incoming chairman of the 
Republican Study Committee, Dr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very serious 
time and a remarkably challenging issue. The good news is that there 
are positive solutions that are available.
  We've been told that the bill before us tonight is a limited bill. I 
would ask my colleagues, compared to what?
  There are many reasons that one might oppose this bill and support 
some positive, tried-and-true solutions, but I would suggest that the 
most important issue upon which to oppose this bill is on Page 15, 
under the authority of the car czar, which says that the President's 
designee, or the car czar, may prohibit the eligible automobile 
manufacturer which received the loan, from consummating any such 
proposed sale, investment, contract, commitment or other transaction. 
That means, Mr. Speaker, that one individual will have complete 
authority and power over three private American automobile 
manufacturers. That's a level of power in one individual, one 
bureaucrat, that is inconsistent, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with 
both American values and with American solutions.
  Now, what's the solution? Well, it's a tried-and-true process that 
thousands of companies, large and small, are able to go through, a 
legal, a court-ordered, a court-approved reorganization and 
restructuring. It allows all stakeholders to come to the table and make 
concessions. It requires all stakeholders to come to the table and make 
concessions, and that's what's going to be necessary to allow our 
automobile manufacturers to get through this and come out on the other 
end vibrant and vital entities in the American marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this and to support a 
positive, tried-and-true solution.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
say that my friend from Georgia apparently doesn't trust the auto 
companies to know what's in their own interest. He says that the 
provision in our bill that gives the administrator the ability to 
cancel a decision, which we have in there as protection against money 
being sent overseas, is way too interventionist, and instead, they'd be 
better off with bankruptcy. That's a choice they will be free to make 
under this bill.
  This bill doesn't force anybody to apply for the money. Any company 
that thinks the provisions of this bill are too burdensome and too 
interventionist retains the full authority to run to bankruptcy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will say this. I yield myself 15 
seconds. They think bankruptcy is a lot less attractive than the 
gentleman from Georgia. But understand, he says, protect the companies 
from this intervention which keeps money from being sent overseas. Let 
them go bankrupt.
  None of them want to make that choice, but if they do, this bill 
leaves them free to do it. It doesn't force them to take the money. 
They still have the joys of bankruptcy which the gentleman from Georgia 
explained to them.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I would like to enter into the Record an article from 
the Economic Policy Institute which says that the shutdown of one or 
more U.S. automakers could eliminate up to 3.3 million U.S. jobs.

           [From the Economic Policy Institute, Dec. 3, 2008]

    When Giants Fall: Shutdown of one or more U.S. automakers could 
                 eliminate up to 3.3 million U.S. jobs

                          (By Robert E. Scott)

       The U.S. motor vehicle industry is one of the largest, most 
     complex and highly integrated sectors of the U.S. economy. 
     The bankruptcy of one or more of the U.S. automakers and a 
     collapse of the domestic auto assembly industry could 
     eliminate up to 3.3 million U.S. jobs within the next year. 
     The collapse of just one company, General Motors (GM), would 
     lead to an estimated reduction of 900,000 jobs. Using the 
     range of job-loss estimates, unemployment would rise by 3.0 
     to 8.9 percentage points in the nine hardest hit states in 
     the United States. Jobs losses would be widespread throughout 
     the U.S. economy. After the U.S. auto market recovers from 
     the current historic recession the U.S. trade deficit could 
     rise by at least $110 billion per year as imported vehicles 
     displace domestic brands, increasing the deficit by 16% and 
     putting additional downward pressure on the U.S. dollar and 
     living standards.
       In addition to its finding that a bankruptcy-related 
     shutdown of the U.S. motor vehicle industry could cost up to 
     3.3 million U.S. jobs, this study finds:
       The 900,000 to 3.3 million jobs lost nationwide would be 
     distributed among all 50 states and the District of Columbia, 
     with the biggest losers, in numeric terms: Michigan (112,500 
     to 407,300 jobs lost), California (84,500 to 305,900 jobs), 
     Ohio (60,500 to 219,100 jobs), Texas (55,200 to 200,000), 
     Illinois (42,800 to 154,900), Indiana (40,700 to 147,300), 
     and New York (39,900 to 144,600) (Table 2a).
       The hardest-hit states, as a share of total state 
     employment, are: Michigan (up to 407,300 jobs, 8.9% of state 
     employment), Indiana (up to 147,300 jobs, 5.0% of 
     employment), Kentucky (up to 75,000 jobs, 4.2% of 
     employment), Alabama (up to 76,100 jobs, 4.0% of employment), 
     Tennessee (up to 106,400, 4.0% of employment), and Ohio (up 
     to 219,100 jobs, 4.0% of employment) (Table 2b).
       Between 113,900 and 412,600 jobs would be lost in the motor 
     vehicle and parts industries alone. Other hard hit 
     manufacturing sectors include fabricated metal products (up 
     to 60,500 jobs lost), primary metals (up to 33,700 jobs 
     lost), plastic and rubber products (up to 23,600 jobs lost), 
     non-electrical machinery (up to 19,800 jobs lost) and 
     computer and electronic parts (up to 16,800 jobs lost) (Table 
     4).
       Service industries would also experience massive job losses 
     including wholesale trade (up to 96,400 jobs lost), retail 
     trade (up to 86,600 jobs lost), transportation (up to 69,6500 
     jobs lost), finance and insurance (up to 30,300 jobs lost), 
     professional, scientific, and technical services (up to 
     76,300 jobs lost), and administrative support and temp help 
     services (up to 55,300 jobs lost) (Table 4).
       Jobs in the auto industry are some of the best paid in the 
     economy, and when workers spend those wages they generate (on 
     average) about 1.7 additional jobs for each job supported in 
     the auto and related sectors. Thus, an auto industry shutdown 
     would eliminate between 576,700 and 2.1 million ``re-
     spending'' jobs in the domestic economy (Table 4). These 
     would constitute the bulk of the jobs displaced by an auto 
     industry bankruptcy.
       If the Big Three auto firms shut down, the U.S. trade 
     deficit would rise by $109.3 billion, a significant (15.6%) 
     increase in the U.S. goods and services trade deficit 
     relative to 2007 levels. This increase would substantially 
     exceed the combined U.S. goods trade deficit with Japan and 
     South Korea in 2007 ($95.7 billion), which was second only to 
     the U.S. deficit with China. Overall U.S. motor vehicle 
     exports would fall by 61%, total imports would rise by 21%, 
     and the U.S. auto trade deficit would rise from $123.5 
     billion to $232.8 billion (88%).
     Conclusion
       The bankruptcy of one or more U.S.-based automakers would 
     lead to the shutdown of significant portions of the U.S. 
     motor vehicle industry. This would, in turn, cause a wave of 
     plant closures and bankruptcies throughout the manufacturing 
     and services sectors of our economy. Under this scenario, as 
     many as an estimated 3.3 million U.S. jobs would be 
     eliminated, with thousands of jobs lost in every state. 
     Massive increases in unemployment would result. But this 
     would just be the first wave of consequences of an auto 
     industry bankruptcy. Massive job loss and community 
     disruption would result. Increased government payments and 
     tax losses alone would exceed $150 billion in the first three 
     years following bankruptcy of all three domestic auto 
     companies, according to Code et al. (2008).
       An airline-style (Chapter 11) bankruptcy re-organization is 
     not an option for U.S.-based automakers. They have already 
     extensively restructured product lines and labor contracts. 
     Academic experts (Helper and MacDuffie 2008) and the industry 
     itself have put forth restructuring plans that include 
     independent oversight committees and regular performance 
     benchmarking tied to future funding. These plans provide the 
     foundation for a rebuilt, restructured domestic auto industry 
     that is ready to compete and deliver good, sustainable U.S. 
     jobs for the future. The alternative is simply too 
     destructive to contemplate.

  We have to understand that the implications of the failure of this 
legislation means that there are many industries across America that 
are going to be adversely affected, including tens of thousands of jobs 
in plastics, in rubber products, in primary metal, in fabricated metal 
products, in machinery, in computer and electronic products, in 
semiconductors, in wholesale trade and retail trade, in transportation, 
in finance and insurance, in professional,

[[Page H10918]]

scientific and technical services, in companies and enterprises, in 
administrative and support and waste management and remediation 
services.
  We're not just talking about some small boutique industry here. We're 
talking about something that is vitally connected to the entire 
American economy.
  Now, we may have agreement about the management of the automotive 
industry, but there shouldn't be any disagreement that the American 
workers make a good product when they are able to make their product.
  We have to have confidence in our Nation. We have to have confidence 
in our ability to make things. We, as a Congress, should take a 
proprietary interest in the fact that America can make cars and that we 
can make steel and planes and that we can build ships. This is what 
made our country great. We cannot maintain any credibility in the world 
community if we see our automotive industry collapse. And steel will 
not be far behind.
  Sixty-seven years ago, when this Nation was attacked, the ability to 
respond and defend America depended on the very industry which is 
facing this Congress today begging for help. But they're not begging 
for help for themselves. Think of millions of Americans who are 
watching our deliberations asking, do we have any sense about what the 
impact of the failure of this legislation would mean?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. KUCINICH. We are expected to be able to see into the future. 
People elect us to be able to hold in our hands their lives, their 
jobs, their economic freedom. We cannot fail them in this moment. We 
cannot let this industry go bankrupt. We cannot let America descend to 
a second-rate power. We must be strong.
  I will be introducing in the next Congress the National Industrial 
Manufacturing Act, which is going to say that steel, automotive, 
aerospace and shipping are deemed to be vital to our national defense. 
And we need a whole new direction. Let's start today by showing we can 
move towards economic recovery by saving our automotive industry.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) with his passion and his clarity really, but really want 
to urge a little bit of caution. And I think the reason for caution was 
on display today in the House Financial Services Committee on a 
different issue. We had some hearings on some oversight as it relates 
to the $700 billion bailout. And it was really, in my hearing, and 
during the time that I was there and watching on television also, it 
was really overwhelming to watch Members of Congress talking to members 
of the administration and almost talking past one another, you know, 
interpreting things differently, and I don't think that's what the 
legislation meant and so forth and so on. And so here we are $700 
billion later, and administration and Capitol Hill talking past one 
another. And I think we're on the verge of doing that same thing here 
if we're not careful, because I represent a district, the western 
suburbs of Chicago, with a lot of auto supply manufacturers. But 
there's no guarantee that that money that we're contemplating tonight 
is going to get to the folks in my district. There's no guarantee that 
the type of pressure that has been put on the auto manufacturers is 
going to come to fruition and actually come up with something good.
  What happened to the December 2 deadline? What happened to the 
December 2 moratorium by which there was going to be a new declaration 
and a new plan? And it has now been postponed now to the end of the 
first quarter.
  So clearly, there is an urgency here to work. Clearly, there is an 
urgency to get something done. But heaven help us if we pass the same 
type of statute that was enacted with such urgency only 2 months ago.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would reserve again. We have got an 
imbalance that we created.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 17 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation this evening. I think it's important that members of the 
Republican Party in the House be for Main Street and the workers of 
America as much as sometimes we are for Wall Street and the financiers 
of America.
  I have the privilege to represent over 2,500 GM assembly workers and 
managers at the GM assembly plant in Arlington, Texas. They produce the 
highest quality products, SUV, hybrids, pickups in the world. They 
export a fair number of the products that they manufacture, and they 
manufacture over 200,000 vehicles on an annual basis every year.
  It would be an absolute shame if we either force these companies into 
bankruptcy or watch them totally go out of business because they had 
the misfortune to be in a business cycle where gasoline was $4 a gallon 
and their product sale fell 40 percent on average in 1 year.
  If I lost 40 percent of my votes in this last election in 2008, I 
would not be coming back as a Member-elect of the next Congress.
  If we can give the AIGs and the Wells Fargos and the J.P. Morgans of 
the world, each of those individual companies, between 40 and $25 
billion, in what amounts to some sort of a very unsecured loan, to be 
generous about it, certainly we can give the American nameplate 
automotive industry a $15 billion bridge loan that has a 5 percent 
interest rate for, I believe, the first 5 years and then a 9 percent 
interest rate after that; that has an automobile czar appointed by 
President Bush to oversee the industry, and force them to be 
accountable on any expenditure over $14 million.
  I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 1 minute to another long-time 
distinguished expert in the field, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, not many people were here back in 1979 when 
this House and the Congress passed the loan guarantee for Chrysler. I 
was a cosponsor of that bill, and we made over $300 million on that 
loan. Before that vote, I was responsible for finding out how many 
congressional districts were affected by Chrysler. I spent hours on the 
phone looking at congressional district after congressional district. 
My research didn't yield many, if any, congressional districts that 
were not affected by the viability of Chrysler Corporation. Steel, 
aluminum, glass, plastic and computer chips are obvious components in 
today's cars.

                              {time}  1900

  But it goes beyond that, Mr. Speaker. My Republican colleague at the 
time, Congressman Jim Broyhill of North Carolina, asked me one day, 
``Kildee, when are you people of Michigan getting back to work?''
  I said, ``Jim, why do you ask?''
  He said, ``Because my constituents in the carpet fiber manufacturing 
industry are suffering.''
  This goes beyond the automobile industry. It touches all of America. 
What America drives drives America.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, nobody here in this institution wants to see 
the auto industry go belly up. Some of us simply believe that the best 
way to ensure the long-term viability of the auto industry is to allow 
them to go into bankruptcy where they can reorganize in a way that will 
make them viable in the long term.
  This legislation simply represents the fatal conceit, the notion that 
we in this institution can outguess the millions of decisions by 
independent actors in the marketplace. We simply

[[Page H10919]]

can't. We know that. Yet think about it. This legislation appoints a 
car czar. That sounds like the guy in East Germany in the 1970s who 
came up with the infamous Trabant, or Trabbie, which is the European 
version of the Edsel. How in the world can anybody in this institution 
or elsewhere in government outguess the marketplace? We simply can't.
  Mr. Speaker, let's allow this industry to go into bankruptcy and to 
reorganize in a way that they will be viable in the long term.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 14 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that in World War II and at 
Willow Run, Michigan, I believe, Ford Motor Company made a bomber every 
60 minutes for this country. Chrysler made tens of thousands of tanks. 
General Motors developed engines for practically every type of war 
machine that we utilized.
  I would ask my colleagues to look at the need for this vote, after we 
have the vote and in the ensuing months, to move into the real 
requirement that is before the American people, and that is this: Right 
now, we have a non-level playing field around the world. We agreed to a 
GAT agreement many years ago after World War II in which we agreed to 
allow other nations to subsidize their auto industries by rebating 
their taxes, their VAT taxes, and by charging that same tax to American 
cars coming into their countries.
  That means that a $10,000 car coming out of Japan receives a rebate 
from the Government of Japan to that car company for $1,500 if they'll 
do one thing--sell the car in America. When the American car comes to 
Japan, it receives a tax of $1,500 at the border for the American car 
to be sold. That's why, of the 132 trading nations moving beyond the 
auto industry, the United States has a deficit, a trade deficit, with 
practically every country in the world, including those with higher 
labor rates than the United States. So, as we apportion these jobs--
this burden--for industry and for labor, there is also a job for 
government.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HUNTER. That job for us is a job of leveling the playing field 
and of reforming our trade policies so that free trade moves in both 
directions. Right now, we have trade that is free in only one 
direction, and that is for products coming into the United States.
  I thank my colleagues, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I will take 30 seconds to 
say that my friend from Arizona says how can we assume that one 
bureaucrat would know more than the marketplace. Well, it's not harder 
to do that than to assume that one bankruptcy trustee would know more 
than the marketplace. Bankruptcy is a suspension of the marketplace. I 
am puzzled by this double standard here. Let's leave it to the market 
by appointing a bankruptcy trustee--a total abnegation of the concept 
of the market--and the appointment of a lawyer who is less likely, it 
seems to me, to have the expertise than the whole Bush administration 
might be able to find in industrial matters.
  I yield 1 minute to the long-suffering and extremely patient 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Let me say that I stand in support of the bridge loans to 
the automobile companies. I speak today for workers. An overwhelming 
majority of my constituents in the First District support the bridge 
loans also. They, like me, do not want to see the Big 3 go bankrupt. 
This would not be good for our economy at this time in our history.
  If these companies are to go into bankruptcy, it would mean that 
hundreds of smaller companies and suppliers would go into bankruptcy or 
would be economically crippled. Millions of Americans have stock in 
these auto companies, and I need not lecture on the further risk to 
their investments that this would cause. The state of the economy has 
already done enough damage to their investments, to pension fund 
investments and to the investments of business and of organizations of 
all kinds. The auto companies and the unions have agreements that will 
bring them in line with Toyota's by 2012. Cut labor costs and industry 
costs.
  I urge the passage of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the bridge loans to the 
automobile companies. I speak today for workers. An overwhelming 
majority of my constitutents in the 1st Congressional District of the 
State of Missouri, support the bridge loans also. They, like me, do not 
see bankruptcy of the ``Big 3'' as a positive for workers or the 
economy at this time in history.
  Mr. Speaker, if these companies are to go into bankruptcy, it would 
mean that hundreds of smaller companies, the suppliers, would go into 
bankruptcy or be economically crippled.
  Small businesses employ more workers in the United States than all 
other employers combined. The failing of the big three auto makers 
would put approximately 300,000 jobs at risk in the auto industry. The 
associated industries, that supply and contract with the auto makers, 
would then have in excess of 3 million workers at risk.
  If the auto makers are to go into bankruptcy, the warranties on your 
cars are at risk. This could result in families, already cash strapped, 
having to pay repairs out of pocket expenses that were not a part of 
their budgets and perhaps that requires shifting money from another 
necessity to pay for the repairs.
  Millions of Americans have stock in these auto companies. I need not 
lecture on the further risks to their investments this would cause. The 
state of the economy has already done enough damage to their 
investments, pension fund investments, and the investments of 
businesses and organizations of all kinds.
  The auto companies and the unions have agreements that will bring 
them in line with Toyotas' by 2012. They continue to work together to 
cut labor costs and industry costs to insure the economic stability of 
the auto industry.
  I also understand that there are other credible arguments to the 
contrary, but I can't agree that this is the time to consider them. Our 
economy is too fragile to risk this kind of hit at this time in the 
country's economic history.
  We have used the tarp money to bail out banks and investment houses 
and to insure that select securities are properly backed. I voted 
against this approach in previous votes. I believe that we need to 
concentrate more on putting money in the hands of consumers through the 
creation of jobs and the maintaining of jobs that do exist. This 
legislation directly targets the workers. We do not need to have an 
economy with healthy institutions and securities and consumers with no 
money to purchase goods or invest.
  I am speaking to both parties on the floor. We won't solve these 
economic problems confronting us working for separate results. And I do 
know that no Member of this floor wants to see this economy crash. I do 
understand that we have some differences of opinion in the methods that 
Government has to employ to inject life into the economy. We can work 
on them after the first of the year. Roll up your sleeves and come back 
in January ready to find the best solutions.
  Join me in supporting this package today. This is only a stopgap 
measure, but a necessary one. We cannot afford the risk of the 
alternatives.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  No one in this Chamber wants to see the Big 3 automakers fail. No 
one. The loss of these automakers would be a tragic circumstance for 
our economy. There is no doubt. Mr. Speaker, I ask the question that I 
asked of the chairman of the Big 3 automakers, and that is:
  Name me three industries that are not hurting in this economy that 
could not be helped, sustained and made more profitable by the infusion 
of $15 billion?
  Stone cold silence at the witness table.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone in every industry is hurting in this economy. 
Why the automakers? Why not the airlines?

[[Page H10920]]

Why not the home builders? Why not the restaurants and the hotels? They 
do not have a monopoly on economic misery. If our purpose here today is 
to preserve jobs, I'm wondering why the money is not destined for the 
small businesses of America.
  This year, a half a million small businesses that are employing an 
average of 10 workers will fail. Small business is the job engine of 
America, not just the small businesses that may be attached to the 
automakers in the industry but all small businesses.
  Jacksonville Industries in my district in Jacksonville, Texas. 
Kenneth Framing in Athens, Texas. Now, I suspect nobody in this Chamber 
has heard the names of those businesses, but we've all heard the names 
of the Big 3 automakers, and we know that they've had the ability to 
spend $50 million to lobby this Congress this year. I don't deny them 
their first amendment opportunities to petition the Congress for the 
redress of their grievances.
  But, Mr. Speaker, are they getting the money and small business isn't 
getting the money merely because we have not heard the names of the 
small businesses and because they're working hard to put food on their 
tables to sustain their families and because they don't have $50 
million to spend on lobbying expenses?
  I think there must be a better way. Indeed, it would be one thing if 
we knew for a fact that this money somehow would solve the problem, but 
we don't. Independent analysts in the auto industry tell us, if demand 
does not pick up for the domestic auto industry, $15 billion, $35 
billion, $75 billion, and $105 billion will not solve the problem. It 
will not solve the problem.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute.
  Everybody agrees that the auto industry needs to reorganize, but the 
question that is before this body is: Is it going to reorganize at the 
risk of investors or is it going to reorganize at the risk of the poor, 
beleaguered taxpayer? Is it going to take voluntary capital from 
investors at risk or involuntary capital from taxpayers that is placed 
at risk?
  The taxpayer can take no more. We are seeing the largest nominal 
deficit in the history of our Nation. The unfunded obligations of the 
average American family are over $400,000. Bailout mania has had 
thousands of dollars of obligations to them. We want the Big 3 to 
survive, but they've got to get down their labor costs. They've got to 
convince the American consumer that their products are worthy of their 
investment. They must reorganize, but another bailout at the taxpayer 
expense is not the answer, particularly when small business does not 
enjoy the same benefit.
  This bill should be voted down.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 1 minute to a member of the 
committee, to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions 
and Consumer Credit, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the body 
tonight.
  I rise in strong support of the bridge loan of $15 billion to three 
of the largest manufacturers in America.
  In response to my good friend on the other side of the aisle, if 
you're concerned about saving small businesses, there are literally 
thousands of small businesses that are associated with the auto 
industry in our country.
  I would like to put in the Record a report that my office and I 
worked on that shows the ripple effect of the loss of these jobs in 
America. Over 3 million jobs are either directly or indirectly 
associated with the auto industry--one in seven manufacturing jobs, 
many small businesses, the auto dealers, the suppliers. This is a major 
employer in America.
  Last month, we lost over 533,000 jobs. Unemployment is at 6.7 
percent. If this industry fails, the unemployment rate will jump to, 
roughly, 8.3 percent. Our fragile economy is in a crisis. We can not 
afford to lose these jobs. Other countries support their auto 
industries. We should, too.

      The Ripple Effect: Why Failure of the Big 3 Is Not an Option


        The Auto Industry Employs One in Ten Manufacturing Jobs

       The domestic vehicle manufacturing industry, including the 
     numerous companies that manufacture parts and technologies to 
     supply American automakers, represents over 10 percent of the 
     nation's manufacturing employment. A major contraction or 
     collapse of the domestic auto industry could have multiple 
     adverse affects on the economy, especially by driving up 
     unemployment. Serious jobs losses in the industry would also 
     have negative spillover effects for the manufacturers that 
     supply everything from tires to cutting edge advanced 
     technology such as advanced batteries for hybrid vehicles. 
     These spillover effects would harm future innovation in the 
     United States broadly, not just in the auto sector. Finally, 
     over 10 percent of U.S. exports are motor vehicles or parts, 
     and an additional 39 percent of exports are from capital 
     goods sectors such as industrial machinery that depend in 
     part on supplying domestic automakers. For this reason, a 
     major failure of U.S. automakers will have an immediate and 
     severe negative effect on our trade deficit, and will make 
     any future progress on improving our trade balance far more 
     difficult.


  Approximately 2 million workers build or sell vehicles made by the 
                             detroit three

       Chart I shows a breakdown of the estimated employment that 
     depends directly on the Detroit Three, based on data from the 
     Department of Commerce. The production supply chain alone 
     relies on almost 1.5 million workers, far more than the 
     quarter million workers who are directly employed by the 
     automakers. This is because most of the workers who produce a 
     car work for outside suppliers who manufacture vehicle parts 
     and components. In addition, vehicle parts suppliers must 
     themselves draw on producers of other supplies and services, 
     ranging from steel to machine tools. The Commerce 
     Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that each 
     job in auto assembly and parts production directly supports 
     2.4 additional jobs in the economy through its supply chain 
     purchases.
       Once the car is produced, it is sold and serviced through 
     auto dealerships that employ over a million workers, 
     approximately half of which sell Detroit Three cars. In 
     total, almost two million workers are directly employed in 
     the production and sale of Detroit vehicles. Only 12 percent 
     of these jobs are in the Detroit automakers themselves, but 
     all of them could potentially be threatened by an automaker 
     shutdown.


  Multiple Studies Estimate Job Losses of 2.5 Million or More from a 
                      Major Automaker Contraction

       The two million workers connected to the Detroit Three 
     indirectly support many other jobs. Job loss among auto 
     workers would reduce spending in their communities, leading 
     to further job losses in retail and other sectors. At a time 
     of general recession, the job and consumer expenditure losses 
     created by a major auto industry contraction will not be made 
     up from other sources.
       The exact number of jobs supported by this spending is 
     difficult to estimate. However, it is clear that numerous 
     additional jobs would be at risk. Three separate studies--
     from Mark Zandi of the economic analysis firm Moody's 
     Economy.com, the Center for Automotive Research, and the 
     Economic Policy Institute--have estimated that a major 
     disruption to the auto industry would lead to job losses of 
     at least 2.5 million and possibly as much as 3 million jobs. 
     This implies that a major contraction or collapse of the 
     domestic auto industry could singlehandedly drive the 
     unemployment rate from its current level of 6.7 percent to 
     8.3 percent, even as job losses in other sectors continue.


  The Current Financial Automaker Crisis Is Exacerbated By the Credit 
                                 Crisis

       The magnitude of these losses were driven by the 
     combination of a massive spike in crude oil and gasoline 
     prices during 2006-07, followed by the credit crisis and 
     recession that has begun over the past year. The credit 
     crisis has led to a sharp cutoff in financing for auto loans, 
     and the general impact of the recession has led to record 
     drops in consumer spending. Chart 2 shows the combination of 
     these two factors has devastated North American vehicle sales 
     for all manufacturers. Total vehicle sales in November 2008 
     were down 37 percent from one year ago. Once recovery has 
     begun from the credit crisis and the recession, it is likely 
     that automaker earnings and sales will begin to show a 
     recovery as well.


    American Automakers Have Already Made Major Progress on Needed 
                             Restructuring

       In 1990, MIT researchers estimated that Toyota and other 
     Japanese ``lean manufacturers'' were twice as efficient as 
     the U.S. ``Big Three'', and could manufacture a car in one-
     half the time required by American firms. Today, the most 
     recent data finds that U.S. manufacturers have ``nearly 
     erased the productivity deficit against their Japanese-based 
     competitors.'' General Motors has increased its productivity 
     15 consecutive years, and now requires 32.3 hours to 
     manufacture a car, as opposed to 30.7 hours for industry 
     leader Toyota--a productivity gap of only about 5 percent. 
     Chrysler has now tied Toyota in productivity.
       GM and other Detroit manufacturers have also made major 
     recent investments in improving fuel efficiency, to avoid a 
     repeat of sales declines associated with rising gas prices. 
     General Motor's 2008 model line has more vehicles with 30 or 
     more miles per gallon than any other manufacturer, and the

[[Page H10921]]

     company plans the introduction of 16 new hybrid vehicles by 
     2010.


 Auto Worker Pay and Benefits Have Already Been Slashed To Competitive 
                                 Levels

       A major reason for cost difference between Detroit and 
     Japanese automakers is that U.S. firms must assume additional 
     pension and retiree health costs not faced by foreign 
     manufacturers. However, in 2005 and 2007 the United Auto 
     Workers (UAW) made major concessions in pay and benefits. The 
     new contract slashed starting salaries at auto plants by 50 
     percent, to about $14 per hour. Current UAW workers also 
     sacrificed all wage increases from 2006 through the end of 
     the contract in 2011. Most important of all, the new contract 
     established a health care trust fund that cut retiree pension 
     and health benefits significantly. For example, the new 
     contract will cut GM's total legacy pension and health 
     benefits from $7 billion to approximately $1 billion 
     beginning in 2010, and cuts Ford's legacy-related costs from 
     $16 to $3 per current labor hour.
       The frequently cited figure that UAW autoworkers make over 
     $70 per hour is inaccurate, and is based on representing the 
     full fixed costs of retiree health and benefits as part of 
     labor costs for the current, much smaller auto-maker 
     workforce. In fact, the most highly paid UAW worker at a 
     Detroit Three automaker, a skilled trades worker with 
     seniority, earns about $33 per hour. The new labor agreement 
     cuts full labor costs, including all current and legacy 
     benefit costs, to $53 per hour for U.S. automakers, as 
     compared to $49 per hour at non-unionized Honda and Toyota 
     assembly plants.


  Standard Bankruptcy Is Not a Viable Solution for Troubled Automakers

       Companies in bankruptcy restructuring are dependent on 
     external financing to continue operation. In the current 
     credit crisis, it is highly unlikely that private sector 
     external financing will be forthcoming for GM or other auto-
     makers that enter bankruptcy. Without private sector 
     financing, a standard Chapter 11 process could quickly result 
     in a movement to Chapter 7 liquidation, potentially resulting 
     in the large-scale job losses outlined above.
       It is also important to note that the bankruptcy process is 
     designed to pay off creditors, not to protect the public 
     interest. During the bankruptcy process, firm management 
     would be unable to undertake major new initiatives to improve 
     technology, fuel efficiency, or productivity, since their 
     attention would be engaged by legal conflicts over finances. 
     Finally, consumers are unlikely to purchase automobiles from 
     a bankrupt manufacturer, due to concerns over warranties and 
     service.


A Conditional Bridge Loan from the Federal Government Is the Right Step

       The American auto industry is under tremendous financial 
     pressure from a unique set of economic circumstances. If one 
     or more auto manufacturers go out of business at this time, 
     then the total costs to society will be far greater than the 
     loan that has been requested from government. The study by 
     the Center for Automotive Research found that a 50 percent 
     contraction in Detroit automaker employment would cause 
     government to lose $50 billion in the first year and $108 
     billion over three years due to combined declines in tax 
     receipts and increases in transfer payments.
       Bridge financing would be crucial in helping these 
     companies past the current credit and economic crisis, until 
     recent improvements in productivity and fuel efficiency pay 
     off. Any bridge financing should be accompanied by strict 
     oversight and conditions for investment in continued progress 
     in improving efficiency, as well as further stakeholder 
     concessions.

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I again inquire as to how much time 
is remaining on both sides, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close. I would like 
to inquire of the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee: I don't know if the gentleman has other speakers.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I am personally prepared to close. 
I would not be allowed to, so I have several more speakers.
  Mr. HENSARLING. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan, who has been, as I can personally testify, the most 
ardent advocate in responding to this automobile crisis, Mr. Levin.
  Mr. LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Frank, for your being a pillar of 
commitment and of intelligence.
  I want to ask a question, but before I do that, I just want to say: 
We hear from the minority that they don't want the domestic industry to 
collapse, but then they give all of the reasons why they'll do nothing 
to help it from collapsing. They talk about the power, as Mr. Frank has 
said, of someone appointed by the President, and give it to a trustee 
who is accountable to no one. Well, a person appointed by the President 
is accountable to the President of the United States.
  To Mr. Frank, our distinguished chairman: Is the savings clause in 
the subordination provision of the legislation intended to apply to 
unfunded committed credit facilities of an automobile manufacturer in 
effect on December 2, 2008?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, the answer 
is, yes, that clause does apply. We would want an automobile 
manufacturer to be able to use any of its existing unfunded credit 
facilities as a source of liquidity. So we clearly intend for the 
savings clause in the subordination provision of the legislation to 
cover unfunded committed credit facilities in effect as of December 2.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me inquire of the gentleman: Does he 
have only one speaker remaining?
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, we have one speaker remaining, so we 
would reserve at this time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Then I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Maryland, the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. In this time of economic crisis--as America is challenged, 
as economists tell us that we are facing the worst recession since the 
Great Depression--I want to say to Barney Frank, the chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee, that nobody has worked harder over the 
last 12 months with Secretary Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Chris Dodd, 
Spencer Bachus, and with others in the Senate and in the House to try 
to address this issue in a responsible, effective way.

                              {time}  1915

  There is nobody in this body, Republican or Democrat, who wants to 
see this economy go down further. There is nobody in this body, 
Republican or Democrat, who wants to see people losing jobs. There is 
nobody in this body who wants to see the 401(k) plans of our senior 
citizens who are relying on those plans for their retirement to have it 
eroded by further reduction in its value.
  Lyndon Johnson once said, ``It's not difficult to do the right thing. 
It's difficult to know what the right thing is.'' And that is, of 
course, what this debate is about, what is the right thing.
  I think it would be a fair statement that there will be really nobody 
who votes on this bill who will say this is absolutely right or this is 
absolutely wrong. There will be many of us who will vote, however, in a 
belief that this is a further effort to try to staunch the 
extraordinarily rapid fall that this economy has seen over the last 12 
months.
  This bill is designed to give the automakers the time and space they 
need to become a competitive job-creating industry once again. Why? 
Because we need them. We need their industrial capacity; we need them, 
frankly, psychologically; and we need them in terms of the employment 
they give, the profits they make, and the quality of product they 
provide.
  It is designed, this bill, to do so while protecting taxpayer 
dollars. Does it do so absolutely? No, it does not. But it has made 
very substantial efforts to put us in the best position possible. 
Reconciling the goals of saving these companies for the welfare of our 
country and protecting our taxpayers has taken long negotiations and 
compromise on both sides, but I'm convinced we've come to a sound 
solution.
  These rescue loans are necessary--not to reward bad decision making 
in Detroit, but to protect 3 million American jobs, 3 million 
livelihoods, 3 million families who depend on the automakers; not only 
their direct employees, but the workers, their suppliers, the small 
businesses--as the gentleman from Texas referenced--that serve those 
workers and entire communities.
  Are we really willing to put those workers at risk in this deep 
recession? 533,000 jobs lost this year last month, 533,000 last month. 
Let me give you a comparison. During the last year of the last 
administration in 2000, we gained over 1\1/2\ million jobs. This year, 
we've lost over 1\1/2\ million jobs. That's a 3 million job turnaround 
in the two 8-year interfacing periods.
  That's why people in America are hurting. We cannot take the risk of

[[Page H10922]]

having a million-month lost jobs. We're not willing to put those 
workers at risk in this deep recession.
  As John Judis put it recently in the New Republic, without public 
loans, ``the industry will disappear the way the American television 
manufacturing industry disappeared. American workers and engineers will 
lose their ability to compete in a major durable goods industry.'' We 
cannot afford to have that happen.
  The gentleman from Texas said that we don't want that to happen. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts says we don't want that to happen. We are 
trying to figure out how we ensure the objective that both of those 
gentlemen believe is appropriate.
  That is the motive behind the $15 billion in emergency bridge loans 
for the car companies. But it is equally important to ensure that those 
loans lead to real reform to ensure that we do not find ourselves right 
back in this same emergency in just a few months' time. All 435 agree 
that that is not an objective or a result we want to see.
  Congress has insisted that the automakers develop detailed plans for 
long-term viability. I'm pleased that we were able to work with the 
administration. It has been criticized, but the administration and the 
President, others in the administration with whom I have talked, 
believe that making sure that this industry has the ability to continue 
is critical to the welfare of this Nation--not just to this industry 
but of this Nation.
  The viability plans that we are requiring were presented to Congress 
on December 2, and we've examined them in detail. Now, this bill will 
hold the automakers to their promises. They will be accountable to 
Congress and the administration as well as an administration-appointed 
``car czar'' who will oversee the efforts of the industry and its 
stakeholders to cut costs, restructure debt, and renegotiate labor 
contracts. They will not be running the car companies, as they should 
not be, but they will be overseeing and ensuring that the car companies 
carry out the promises that they have made to us and to the taxpayers.
  Just like any other lender, the Federal Government is insisting that 
the recipients of its loans be on a plausible path to profitability. If 
the automakers stick to their plans for viability, more assistance, of 
course, may be possible. But if the administration-appointed official 
finds that they have not made adequate progress on restructuring by 
March 31, the loans will be called, and the automakers will be a step 
closer to bankruptcy.
  The automakers and most of the people with whom I've talked, liberal 
economists, conservative economists, Republicans and Democrats, believe 
that bankruptcy is not the option. There are some who believe that's 
the option, but most I have talked to do not.
  This bill, of course, also includes safeguards for the taxpayers, as 
I said. It lets the American people profit if and when the value of the 
car companies recovers, as surely all of us hope it will. And it 
guarantees that taxpayer money will not fund lavish executive bonuses 
or golden parachutes.
  Mr. Speaker, if we act today, we can seize the chance for an American 
auto industry that is leaner, greener, and once more competitive.
  But ladies and gentlemen of this House, if we do nothing, we face the 
risk that sometime soon there will be no American auto industry. That 
will not be good for our national security, it will not be good for our 
economic security, it will not be good for the psychology of our 
country.
  So Mr. Speaker, I urge us, as I urged before when we acted to try to 
free up credit to prop up the financial industries--so critical to the 
success of every industry, of every consumer, of every household--to 
act not as Democrats, not as Republicans. I believe this will be a 
bipartisan bill. There will be Republicans who vote for this bill and 
Democrats who will vote for this bill.
  The administration has worked hard with us. We've worked hard with 
them to come to agreement. There may be some items that are still not 
in agreement. But the overwhelming objective of this bill and the 
result of this bill is agreed to between the administration and 
ourselves.
  This bill has the power to protect innumerable American jobs, and its 
strong safeguards will ensure that we are authorizing anything but a 
bridge loan to nowhere.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of this legislation, and in closing, 
again thank Barney Frank, Spencer Bachus, and all of the others in the 
House on both sides, proponents and opponents, who have worked on this 
bill conscientiously to try to respond to a crisis that confronts our 
country and that the American public is asking us to help them solve to 
make their lives better, to bring our country back.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  And to my friends, Mr. Hensarling and Dr. Price from the Financial 
Services Committee, you raise some legitimate points. But I think three 
questions have to be asked, and if they're answered in the affirmative, 
then I think we must go forward and pass this bill.
  First, do you believe that the domestic auto industry is essential to 
America, whether it's for jobs or national security? I think the answer 
is ``yes.'' But that doesn't answer the whole question.
  The second two questions are, are you throwing good money after bad, 
or can you restructure these companies so that they can be competitive 
and succeed going forward? I think the answer is ``yes.'' We've 
received reorganization/restructuring plans from them that show really 
an ability to compete and to bring technology that leapfrogs Japanese 
technologies and other technologies into the future for our companies. 
So we can restructure these companies.
  And the third, can we protect the advances, the loans, that are made 
by the United States to these companies for the next hundred days? And 
the answer is ``yes.'' And in fact, we've gone about as far as we can 
go within the bounds of the Constitution and say that such loans shall 
be senior and prior to all obligations, liabilities, and debts of the 
automobile manufacturers, and we will take all available security and 
collateral.
  So we've done those three things. Is it essential? Yes. Can they be 
restructured? Yes. Have we secured the taxpayer? Yes.
  So we are making a loan for 100 days until a reorganization plan is 
approved by the President's designee. If in fact during that time there 
is no reorganization plan or one that is not viable, that designee can 
call the loan.
  So this is a step for 100 days to protect an industry that is 
essential to this country. I've thought about this a lot. We have done 
what we can to limit executive pay, to stop dividends or distributions 
during the period of the loans.
  So we are taking steps to protect taxpayers for an industry that is 
essential to this country, and we will see over the next 100 days 
whether they can be restructured.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I will now speak, and I will 
have one speaker after that. So when I'm through, it will be the turn 
of the gentleman from Texas to do his closing because I'm retaining one 
speaker after myself.
  I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Here is the dichotomy: Bankruptcy versus a piece of legislation which 
says to the administration--the incoming and outgoing--you do what you 
hope to accomplish in bankruptcy but with more flexibility, with a 
greater pool of people to call on.
  We've heard mocked the notion that either this administration or the 
next would have within its ranks expertise in economics and industrial 
organization, and we're told, ``No, no. That doesn't work. Find a 
bankruptcy trustee.'' I think they get the worst part of that argument 
if they listen to it.
  Beyond that, we have consumer marketing issues. The three companies 
are convinced--and almost every expert I talked to agrees with them--if 
they declare formal bankruptcy, their ability to sell cars is damaged. 
People buying cars want to know they will have a continuing 
relationship with an entity that will service the cars and make parts 
for the cars.
  So this continuing longer term relationship makes bankruptcy far more 
of a problem for them than for an airline where your contingency was 
just to buy one seat and nothing further.

[[Page H10923]]

  But again, the greatest illogic is to argue that somehow in the 
bankruptcy courts with a bankruptcy trustee, we were going to tie it to 
the lawyers. You get a far greater degree of expertise than either one 
of the two Presidential administrations could find within its ranks of 
economists and engineers and others. Therefore, we believe that our 
solution is the preferred one.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of 
our time to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. McCOTTER. I come from Michigan. I was born in Detroit. Wherever 
you go in the world, people know two things about Detroit. They know we 
make cars and they know we make music, Motown. And so when we find 
ourselves in difficult situations, it is not unusual for us to refer to 
music to help keep our lucidity and our balance to come through the 
tough times.
  As I listen to the debate on the auto industry, in many ways I'm 
reminded of Bob Seger's song where he says: To the IRS I'm another 
file. I'm just a statistic on a sheet. I feel like a number. I'm not a 
number. I'm a man.
  We've heard a lot of talk about the policy undergirding this bill. 
There are good arguments on both sides, but I live with the people who 
will be affected by it. There have been those who have said bankruptcy 
is an option. Many people have said bankruptcy is a preferred option. I 
suppose bankruptcy is an option for those who it is not an option for. 
Why? Because those who like bankruptcy should first impose bankruptcy 
upon themselves and to see how their family feels when their future has 
been foreclosed, when they have no job, when they have no hope, when 
they believe that they have been forgotten because they are a number.
  We can talk about the small businesses. We have small businesses in 
Michigan, and they rely on manufacturing jobs in the auto industry to 
stay in business, because the ripple effect is not a ripple effect. It 
is a tsunami effect. For one manufacturing job, you will lose 7 to 10 
others, and we in Michigan have felt this pain. Oh, we have felt this 
pain, and we have seen the cost of the restructuring that so many here 
seem oblivious to.
  But again, we're numbers, I guess, in Michigan. We're statistics. 
We're involved in systems. We've been devoid of souls evidently at 
least by the opinion-makers and looters that have now watched the 
restructuring that so many of us on both sides of the aisle have 
watched for years.
  But we're from Michigan. We did not complain. We kept our nose to the 
grindstone. We gritted our teeth. We suffered and endured. We endured 
as businesses closed, as white collar and blue collar jobs were lost. 
We endured as retirees worried about what would happen to their hard-
earned lifetime of benefits, those legacy costs so many are so willing 
to shave, our senior citizens' lifetimes of hard work. They played by 
the rules, which bankruptcy would change.
  We've heard a lot about the quality gap. We have heard a lot about 
the cost. I guess we should make less to be like everybody else. It's 
not a very attractive option for real people, but if you're a number, 
if you're a statistic on a sheet, this makes perfect sense. It's very 
logical. It's very logical unless you start to worry about the person 
behind the statistic, the person who will get to look amongst their 
Christmas cards for a layoff notice, the ones who have already had an 
anxious Thanksgiving as we performed our due diligence upon the 
executives and President Gettelfinger of the UAW and had them come in 
and testify.
  We asked them how they got here. We asked them why they were in a 
restructuring now, again, as if the last several years had never 
happened. And I think they were productive meetings in the end. It 
brought us here to a bill that we believe can protect taxpayers and can 
help an industry that has been restructuring continue to survive.
  And if a bridge loan is passed, will we be happy in Detroit? Will we 
be happy in manufacturing throughout America? No. And it's not because 
it's not the money we wanted. It's because we know a painful 
restructuring will continue if this bridge loan is approved.
  You see, to me, this is not abstract. My son Neal, my oldest son, 
turned 14, he looked at me and said, hey, Dad, I know what I want to be 
when I grow up. I said, well, as long as it is not a Congressman, I'm 
okay with that, whatever it is. And he looked at me, and he said I want 
to be an automotive engineer. And because of the restructuring in the 
auto industry, because of the pain that we've had and because of the 
reality that our children leave us for better climates economically and 
otherwise, I didn't have the heart to tell my son that the likelihood 
of him achieving his dream of being an automotive engineer would be 
foreclosed to him.
  And there are so many other children that grow up loving cars, who 
want to have that experience, and it's not just the children. It is the 
parents, the parents who work in the industry, white collar, blue 
collar, and my Republican friends, it is not just the white collar we 
must worry about.
  I have a very interesting experience when I talk to people on my side 
of the aisle about UAW and their concessions. Give credit where credit 
is due. They've been a partner with the big three in making painful 
concessions. I hope one thing yet will suffice.
  I once spent a freezing winter morning in front of the glass house at 
the Ford Company corporate headquarters in Dearborn. All those 
employees, those UAW members that people say don't want to work, come 
to work and don't want to perform, don't care about their quality of 
performance, I will tell you what. They stood out in 0-degree 
temperatures to keep the Wixom plant in my district open. That's how 
badly they wanted to work. That's how much they cared about the 
production of those cars. That's how much they loved their families.
  For those who think we've not been restructuring, the Wixom plant was 
closed as part of a Ford Motor Company restructuring. How many more 
people that want to work will be precluded because we did not give them 
the opportunity?
  We hear that the auto industry has brought it on itself. Well, that's 
what Washington does. Washington makes bad decisions and blames the 
victim. And we're not going through the painful litany of how 
Washington has not been as helpful as it could be, but let us suffice 
to say that throughout the entire restructuring process that we have 
endured and know will continue, we did not come here with our hand out, 
did we?
  We did not ask the Federal Government to take over all the health 
care of the employees. We did not ask the Federal Government to keep 
the Wixom plant open. We did not ask the Federal Government to do 
anything but leave us alone while we continued our painful 
restructuring and gritted our teeth and kept our nose to the 
grindstone.
  And now, circumstances outside of our control have led us to the 
point where we have to be here or there will be no domestic auto 
industry in the United States, and there will be no manufacturing base 
in the United States, and this at a time when it has been pointed out 
the taxpayers that work in the auto industry are watching the people at 
AIG talk about $4 million per person bonuses after they have been 
bailed out to the tune of roughly $40 billion in this last round of 
their dollars. But then again, when you're a statistic, when you're a 
number, those things don't really matter for the people who have to 
make the decisions.
  We come here to make decisions as best we can in public policy, but 
the overriding goal is to serve the people that those policies affect, 
and in my mind, the failure of sound policies here at least gives us 
the chance to give these people to survive, to keep a manufacturing 
sector in place in the United States, and to let these working families 
continue to endure and grit their teeth and keep their nose to the 
grindstone and work and hope for the best. Because if we do not, we 
will be confirming that they are statistics, they are numbers, that 
they are worthy of bankruptcy because that's what makes economic sense, 
if not moral and societal sense.
  And to close, I remember very well coming home after the Thanksgiving 
break after we had the auto industry in, and I was driving past the 
Jefferson plant.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, for the remainder of the 
time,

[[Page H10924]]

I am honored to announce that Speaker Pelosi will close.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I rise in support of this important legislation and commend Chairman 
Frank for his persistence in bringing a very focused, disciplined bill 
to the floor and thank Mr. Bachus for his leadership as well.
  As Speaker of the House, I am pleased to rise to quote another 
Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, a legend in our country, certainly 
in this Congress. He served here with great distinction, as many of us 
know from the history books and some of us saw as students, and he said 
the following. He said: When I was a child, I lived way out in the 
country. I'd sit on the fence on Sundays and wish to God that somebody 
would ride by on a horse or drive by on a buggy, just anything to 
relieve my loneliness. Loneliness, he said, consumes people. That's why 
I'm so glad to see that today farmers have cars. And he goes on to say 
what that progress meant in the life of developing a sense of 
community.
  Since the days when the Model Ts first rolled off Henry Ford's 
assembly line owning a car has been part of the American dream. I know 
when I was young and when the new models would come out it was a very 
festive occasion. It has been for a long time. I just haven't kept up 
with all the cars. But today, the American automotive industry is 
imperiled due not only to recession and a credit freeze, but because it 
has been on the wrong track for long-term competitiveness and job 
creation.
  Today, we are considering legislation not as life support to sustain 
a dying industry but a jump start for an industry that is essential to 
our country's economies, economic health. One in 10 American jobs is 
linked to the domestic auto industry, and it is a key pillar in an 
American sector critical to our national security and economic 
competitiveness for decades to come.
  This legislation is about offering Detroit, and America, a chance to 
get back on track. This legislation is important. It is built on four 
principles, and actually it comes down to a question of tough love, 
tough love for an industry whose success is essential to our economic 
success, whose jobs are important to our workforce, whose innovation is 
essential to our progress, and whose manufacturing and technological 
and industrial base is also essential to our national security.
  There are four principles in the bill. First, when we ask taxpayers 
to put up money to fund this restructuring, we must have accountability 
to the American people. The President will designate a car czar to 
oversee the industry's restructuring. The taxpayers get a return on 
their investment or are first in line to be repaid. I thank Mr. Frank 
for insisting on that provision. No golden parachutes, bonuses, or 
corporate jets for executives. And the Government Accountability Office 
and the TARP, that's the Troubled Assets Relief Program, Inspector 
General will provide independent oversight to protect our investment. 
Accountability for the taxpayer.
  Second, there must be shared sacrifice. Everybody, every party to the 
auto sector must be present at the table. Mr. McCotter rightfully 
referenced the United Auto Workers making concessions, but they 
shouldn't be the only ones making concessions. I've called it a 
barbershop: When one person gets a haircut, everyone must get a 
haircut. That means those who are shareholders, those who are 
bondholders must have a cramdown on what return they get on the dollar. 
Suppliers have to understand the realities of what the market is for 
these cars. Dealers have to be treated with the respect that all of 
these elements deserve but with the reality of what the real 
marketplace is and what the market for the cars are. The auto workers 
have made concessions already. Perhaps they must be expedited, perhaps 
they must do more, but everything must be a shared sacrifice, and if 
one element is going to make the sacrifice, they shouldn't be asked to 
do so unless everyone shares in that. And the executive suite, the 
management of the companies, they must be part of that sacrifice as 
well, and I referenced that in the accountability section.
  Third, the auto makers must restructure or repay. The companies must 
restructure to achieve viability, international competitiveness, and 
they must do this with fuel efficiency and reduced emissions.
  And this is important for our colleagues who do not support this bill 
because we share many views. This has to be a tough standard because 
otherwise we're just putting out money for more of the same, but that 
is not what this legislation is about nor should it be. If they do not, 
the car czar can require immediate repayment of a loan if the company 
has not made adequate progress by February 15 to develop a long-term 
restructuring plan. The company will get no more Federal assistance if 
it fails to submit an acceptable final restructuring plan by March 31.
  The list again, accountability, shared sacrifice, restructuring, and 
fourth and finally, there must be a commitment to innovation and 
efficiency.

                              {time}  1945

  Green is gold. Green is gold. Making a commitment to innovation and 
fuel economy and better emission standards makes the automotive 
industry in our country more competitive. People will want to buy their 
cars.
  The legislation calls for maintaining a half billion dollars of the 
innovation funding set aside to help the industry retool to build 
advanced technology vehicles that greatly improve efficiency and reduce 
carbon emissions, and replenishing the remainder of the innovation 
funds in a matter of weeks.
  Now, let me just say this. I have objected strenuously to using the 
green funds, the so-called 136 funds, because their purpose in our 
energy bill last year was very specific. It was for advanced, 
innovative manufacturing technology. In other words, it was for the 
retooling and making sure that companies had funds for them to 
research, develop, and benefit from that funding. The administration 
insisted that money be used instead for this restructuring period of 
time. I reluctantly agreed only with the idea that the money would be 
replenished, because without their advanced manufacturing technology, 
we are not going to have the progress necessary to compete 
internationally and domestically, for that matter. And most of that is 
about the environment. It's about the greening of the automotive 
industry.
  I know the automotive industry can do it. Do you know, my colleagues, 
that in Europe this year the car that took first place in the ratings 
there was a GM Opel, a GM Opel, a General Motors Opel? Second place 
went to Ford Fiesta. Over 100 points behind them was Volkswagen. So 
these are General Motors- and Ford-made cars. Ranking just 1 point 
behind was Ford, 100 points or more behind was Volkswagen. These are 
American company-made cars in Europe that they have not chosen to sell 
in America.
  Something is wrong with this picture. We know that in Latin America 
the flex-fuel cars for years have been sold. They were American-made 
cars, made by American manufacturers. Millions of them. But the 
industry chose not to advance them here because they made more money 
off of SUVs and the executive compensation and bonuses were tied to 
SUVs. Something is very wrong with this picture.
  So what we are saying here is let everybody come to the table. 
Everybody get a haircut. Everybody has got to get a trim, maybe a big 
trim. Only then can we restructure this so that we have a competitive 
industry looking to the future, as Sam Rayburn looked to the future 
when he was so excited about seeing cars for the first time, bringing 
the American people together, American cars that have always been part 
of the American Dream.
  So I'm optimistic because I see us with two choices: One is the 
automotive industry is on the brink, and some are advocating 
bankruptcy. Some of the people advocating bankruptcy will make money 
off that bankruptcy. But that takes us down to a deep pit that over a 
long period of time is detrimental to our economy, harmful to our 
workers, and certainly does not make us more competitive 
internationally.
  Instead we have listened to what the companies have had to say. We 
said you're not going to see any money until we see the plan. We've 
seen the plan. It was better than what we saw before. Much more needs 
to be done. This affords a period of time with half of what they asked 
for. But we want to see performance, we want to see milestones by 
certain dates that they are

[[Page H10925]]

making this progress. And we want to see a change in mentality in the 
executive suite in Detroit.
  What a great community, what a great State, Detroit and Michigan. 
They have been part, again, of the manufacturing part of the American 
Dream. We want to throw a lifeline for success. We do not intend to 
afford life support so that we just have to revisit this issue again at 
the same status quo.
  So if you're upset with how the Big Three executives have operated, 
if you're upset about the fact that we are not competitive 
internationally, if you're upset that the taxpayer dollar has to be 
used to be committed to this, you should be very pleased with what this 
legislation does because it captures your frustration with it all. It 
sets us on a new path to viability, and it is a test, and we will soon 
see in a matter of weeks if the executive suites in Detroit are willing 
to make the choices. Certainly there needs to be retooling of the 
plants. Certainly there has to be renegotiating of the contracts. There 
may have to be reconsideration of the management of these companies if 
they cannot live up to the standard of this legislation and prove 
themselves worthy of the taxpayers' dollar that is being placed there.
  So I think that on both sides of this issue we have a great deal of 
common ground. I just happen to come down on the side of giving a 
chance, this one more chance, to this great industry, optimistic by 
March 31 that we will all celebrate the new path that we are going 
down, but certainly ready, certainly ready to admit if that does not 
happen because unless it is absolutely clear in the minds of the people 
that we are talking about, the executives, the shareholders, the 
bondholders, the suppliers, the dealers, all of whom I respect, and the 
workers, who are a very high priority for us, unless it is clear to 
them that concessions and serious concessions must be made or else the 
alternative is almost unthinkable, they will not make the necessary 
concessions in some cases.
  I salute the United Auto Workers for stepping up to the plate, for 
being the model, for leading the way to say we respect this industry, 
we want to advance it, and we are willing to take the lead in making 
those concessions.
  So this is an important day in the life of America when the Congress 
speaking for the people, who are rightfully unhappy about all of this 
money going to companies that are supposed to be in the free market and 
be competitive, but nonetheless understanding what is at risk for all 
of us. As keepers of the taxpayers' trust here, if bankruptcy were to 
occur, the additional cost in unemployment insurance and food stamps 
and the safety net and the revenue foregone in our tax situation, 
locally, State, and nationally, would exact much more of a toll than 
the amount of money that we would be putting forth here.
  So again I salute Mr. Frank for his leadership.
  And may I say that at the end of the day yesterday, the legislation 
that you have before us is the legislation that we conceded on several 
points to agree to the White House language. This is bipartisan in its 
nature, and it is the legislation that we said we would go forward with 
in a bipartisan way that the President would sign. Others have made 
other changes, adjustments, whatever it is. They say on the Senate side 
they need this and that. But we operate in good faith. We agree to 
concessions. And we would hope that the White House would keep its word 
that it gave us last night about this legislation and encourage the 
Senate to follow suit and the President can sign the bill so the 
message will be clear to the markets and to the American people, to the 
workers and to all concerned with this great industry that we want to 
share in that sacrifice as well and we stand willing to do it by voting 
``yes'' on this important legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, with all of the rhetoric 
about today's loan package, it is easy to lose track of the decision we 
have to make. We can, as some have suggested, decide to let two of 
America's largest businesses go bankrupt in the coming months. If that 
happens, more than 2 million workers will likely lose their jobs. 
Communities across this country will be devastated. According to 
estimates, New Mexico alone stands to lose roughly 10,000 jobs. New 
Mexicans who ask nothing more than to work hard and provide for their 
families will be forced to put their dreams on hold.
  Or, we can pass this bill.
  Nobody disagrees that the auto industry has made mistakes. Car 
company CEOs have been reckless and short-sighted. While Japanese 
companies were rushing to produce hybrids, American companies were 
suing states like New Mexico to stop energy efficiency standards. While 
other companies were investing in the cars of the future, Big Three 
executives were trying desperately to turn back the clock. They refused 
to anticipate rising energy prices. Today, their irresponsibility 
threatens their companies, their employees and millions of American 
workers.
  But we should not punish 3.3 million American workers and their 
families for the errors of a few executives. Yes, car company CEOs have 
been reckless and short-sighted. But that ends today. If this proposal 
passes, American car companies will trade in their Hummers for hybrids. 
And in the process, they will build an industry ready to compete in the 
21st Century. But all these changes will not be possible unless we act 
now.
  Unlike TARP, which I opposed, this plan tells executives that if they 
do not change, they will not survive. If the auto industry does not 
have an acceptable viability plan in three and a half months, they will 
not see another dime of taxpayer money. Whatever money they have 
received will have to be repaid immediately.
  Today's vote does not spend one additional taxpayer dollar. We have 
already approved $25 billion to help the American auto industry build 
energy efficient cars. I supported that because it was necessary to 
force Detroit to modernize. Today's legislation simply provides some of 
that money right now to make sure that there is an American auto 
industry to modernize. More importantly, this bill provides increased 
oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars help American workers and 
drivers, not stockholders or executives. It mandates that our money 
will not be spent on executive salaries, dividends or corporate jets. 
It institutes unprecedented controls to protect the people's money from 
misuse. Most importantly, it ensures that Detroit can no longer 
continue with business as usual.
  Madam Speaker, we face great economic challenges, some of the most 
difficult in decades. Job reports last week showed half a million jobs 
lost in November alone. This is not a perfect bill; it is just the best 
we could get from this president. But given the current climate, we 
cannot afford to risk another 3 million jobs by refusing to act. That 
is why today I will be voting yes.
  Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted to support H.R. 7321, the Auto 
Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, having determined that it was 
the best compromise given the current circumstances. I supported the 
restructuring because it meets the standards that I used in voting on 
previous bailout proposals. First, this is a relatively small sum 
compared to the trillions that have been devoted to stabilizing the 
financial industry. Second, the taxpayer is protected by the smaller 
sums and stricter controls employed in these loans. Finally, unlike the 
financial services industry, this legislation offers a lifeline to 
people making a real product.
  Unfortunately, that real product is not of the nature and quality 
that Americans need and demand. The auto industry leadership is 
ultimately responsible for their failure. New management should be put 
into place, along with a new direction. It is paramount that Congress 
takes this opportunity to move the domestic auto industry towards 
greater environmental sustainability. Providing resources and direction 
to the automakers to accelerate the development of fuel efficient 
vehicles and other environmental technologies will improve the position 
of those companies to meet future market demands.
  There is no doubt that a serious change in direction and downsizing 
is necessary. There will be significant management and labor 
concessions. This proposal will allow the United States to see the 
automakers' survival is possible. If the industry cannot follow through 
on their promises to rebuild and restructure, it is very unlikely that 
I will be supportive of subsequent efforts. This is their chance to 
demonstrate that they can and will make significant changes in a new 
and better direction.
  Finally, I am pleased that the legislation includes a provision that 
protects transit agencies from the consequences of the collapse of 
insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG), which guaranteed many 
lease agreements that transit agencies entered into to pay for buses, 
trains and other equipment in the 1990s. During a year of record 
ridership, our transit agencies need these resources. For example, the 
transit provider in my district, Tri-Met, is reporting a 5.47 percent 
year to date growth in ridership--a substantial figure for such a 
mature transit agency. Without this provision, Tri-Met could face the 
loss of $200 million in FTA-approved financing.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to yet another 
taxpayer funded bailout

[[Page H10926]]

of an industry that has been poorly managed for years. I voted no when 
Wall Street came asking for their handout in September and I will vote 
no to bailing out corporations that have refused to evolve and build 
products that people want to buy.
  The automakers are in trouble because they have been mismanaged. For 
years they built gas-guzzlers, stifled innovation, and lobbied against 
reasonable environmental and safety standards. Even when credit was 
flowing freely, Americans weren't buying Detroit's products.
  Workers are not to blame--they have already accepted deep wage and 
benefit cuts. If there was anything in this bill that provided 
protection for those workers, then I might think differently. What I 
see, however, is a repeat of the September bailout scenario; a large 
commitment of taxpayer money with very little explanation of how these 
funds will address the significant problems of the industry. Indeed, 
the CEOs tell us that the $15 billion will ``get them through 
January.'' And then what?
  If you want to see quality cars being made by unionized workers, go 
to my district. At the NUMMI plant in Fremont, UAW-organized workers 
build cars, such as Corollas, that people want to buy. This plant is a 
joint venture between GM and Toyota and has made a profit for both 
companies. They are not here asking for a bailout.
  Let's not repeat the mistakes of three months ago by throwing good 
money after bad.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, for reasons enumerated elsewhere, I 
strongly support this bill. It is essential that Congress take this 
prudent step to provide a short-term bridge loan to help preserve a 
viable domestic auto industry, and its far-reaching contributions to 
the overall long-term health of our economy, while appropriately 
safeguarding the interests of American taxpayers.
  The bill we are considering today contains a provision creating a 
limited antitrust exemption for certain consultations in which a U.S. 
automaker may be asked to engage with its employees, dealers, 
suppliers, and other creditors for the purpose of reaching agreement on 
a restructuring plan for the automaker under the bill. As Chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, I would like to emphasize a few points 
regarding that provision.
  The antitrust laws are the fundamental legal protector of our free 
market system--the Supreme Court has aptly referred to them as the 
Magna Carta of the free enterprise system. Exemptions from the 
antitrust laws can be very harmful and destructive of the basic 
economic freedom we cherish as Americans.
  For that reason, any proposed antitrust exemption should be very 
carefully considered as to its need. And even if a need can be clearly 
demonstrated, the exemption should be carefully focused and of limited 
duration.
  In keeping with those considerations, this exemption is temporary and 
very focused. It is designed to give greater assurance to the various 
``interested parties''--the employees, retirees, dealers, suppliers, 
shareholders, and creditors of a U.S. automaker covered by this bill, 
listed in section 6(a)(1)(B)--who will be consulting and negotiating 
with the automaker in an effort to reach agreement on a long-term 
restructuring plan for the automaker pursuant to the bill.
  Some of these interested parties are reportedly uncertain as to how 
their participation in these consultations might raise issues under the 
antitrust laws. With the urgent need to move quickly on this 
legislation, it has not been possible to sit down with them and 
understand the precise nature of their concerns. Based on similar 
concerns that are raised from time to time in various quarters, the 
concerns may well be misplaced, reflecting a lack of understanding 
about the antitrust laws, which prohibit only conduct that harms 
competition, permitting the wide range of conduct that does not harm 
competition.
  While these concerns may be misplaced, however, they appear to be 
genuine and held in good faith, and could therefore have the effect of 
discouraging the kinds of participation that is needed from all 
interested parties in order to enable the restructuring plans to 
succeed. To help avert this risk, this antitrust exemption has been 
carefully crafted to provide sufficient reassurance and guidance to 
interested parties, while avoiding the risk of shielding truly 
anticompetitive conduct from effective antitrust enforcement.
  First, the limited exemption covers only the discussions, 
consultations, and meetings among an eligible auto manufacturer and its 
own interested parties. It does not cover joint activity among two or 
more automakers, which could create more risk of harm to competition. 
It also does not cover action taking place outside those discussions, 
consultations, and meetings.
  Second, the limited exemption fully preserves the authority of the 
Federal antitrust agencies to bring enforcement action for injunctive 
relief to stop anticompetitive conduct should it occur. Merger 
enforcement authority is also preserved.
  Similarly, the so-called ``per se'' offenses, such as price fixing, 
market allocation, and boycott, remain fully subject to antitrust 
enforcement. These are not kinds of conduct that someone innocently 
stumbles into. They are intentional schemes to subvert competition, and 
can be extremely harmful to the free market system and the economy.
  Third, in the event that the discussions, consultations, and meetings 
continue for an extended period, the exemption sunsets after 3 years. 
In all likelihood, the exemption will quickly prove unnecessary. If 
not, and if the negotiations are still ongoing as the end of the 3-year 
period approaches, Congress can always consider extending the sunset if 
the exemption is truly warranted. The sunset is consistent with the 
recommendation of the Antitrust Modernization Commission that any 
antitrust exemption should be temporary.
  Finally, in order to encourage whatever further guidance may be 
appropriate, the provision requires that, to the extent practicable, 
the Federal antitrust enforcement agencies be given reasonable advance 
notice of any discussion, consultation, or meeting covered by the 
provision, and the opportunity to participate.
  As carefully crafted, this provision should provide whatever guidance 
and reassurance the interested parties may need that their good-faith 
efforts to cooperate in achieving the bill's important objectives for 
this important bedrock American industry will not inadvertently create 
antitrust problems, while at the same time taking appropriate care not 
to inadvertently immunize truly anticompetitive conduct that could 
severely harm the long-term health of this industry, the many economic 
sectors it touches, and the American economy itself.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Auto Industry 
Financing and Restructuring Act (H.R. 7321), emergency legislation to 
authorize and appropriate funding to temporarily stabilize the American 
automobile industry.
  The automobile industry provides one of the few manufacturing bases 
left in the United States, and approximately 3.3 million jobs in the 
Nation are either directly or indirectly dependent upon it. According 
to the Economic Policy Institute, New Jersey stands to lose 17,900 jobs 
if General Motors fails, and 65,000 jobs if the auto industry 
collapses--and an industry-wide collapse is the likely result if even 
one of the big-three auto makers fails. As we stand on the precipice, 
already facing an unemployment rate more than 6 percent, we cannot 
afford to stand by and watch as millions more in America join the ranks 
of the unemployed. It is well within the realm of possibility--some 
experts argue it is virtually a certainty--that allowing even one of 
our major auto makers to fail would send the country into a depression.
  The United States is facing a virtual ``perfect storm'' with respect 
to the many sectors of its economy that are simultaneously in distress. 
One of the most damaging outcomes of this economic crisis has been that 
credit markets are frozen. In fact, despite the infusion of billions in 
funding intended to stabilize the financial services markets under the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, enacted in October, credit 
markets still have not improved as of the closing days of 2008. 
Instead, stable banks that have received those Capital Purchase 
Program, CPP, funds under the EESA have tended either to retain the 
funds to improve their own stability or use the funds to purchase other 
struggling financial services entities. Had Troubled Asset Relief 
Program, TARP, funds under the EESA been used for the purpose the 
Treasury Secretary originally demanded them for--to purchase troubled 
assets or implement other mechanisms through which those assets could 
be liquidated and thus free up the credit markets--perhaps things would 
be different.
  Under the EESA, the U.S. Comptroller General is required to report 
every 60 days on TARP implementation, and in its first report released 
last week, the GAO stated that ``Treasury has yet to address a number 
of critical issues, including determining how it will ensure that CPP 
is achieving its intended goals.'' I am not convinced that the CPP is 
achieving its goals, or even that the CPP program will be more 
effective than using TARP funds or other creative mechanisms to 
liquidate TARP assets would have been. In addition, the Treasury 
Secretary and the Bush administration have refused to use even a tiny 
fraction--less than 5 percent--of the TARP funds to stabilize the auto 
industry until the CPP has the impact of freeing up credit markets, 
which could then meet the auto industry's need for financing. 
Therefore, our major auto makers have come to Washington to ask the 
taxpayers for a loan.
  Some commentators, and indeed some of my constituents, have argued 
that Congress should simply let the automakers go bankrupt. But the 
likelihood that that could deepen our current recession is too great, 
and the persons who would be punished by congressional inaction are not 
the ones who created the crisis,

[[Page H10927]]

but rather the millions of people whose jobs depend on the auto 
industry.
  Therefore, we must support the auto industry. I am pleased to see 
that the measure before us will provide taxpayers with an equity stake 
in the underlying companies, prohibit the payment of dividends to 
shareholders during the life of the loans, and prohibit golden 
parachutes and payment of bonuses to the top 25 most highly paid 
employees at each company. In addition, it establishes both a ``Car 
Czar'' to hold the companies accountable for developing and 
implementing sustainable restructuring plans, and oversight authority 
by the Government Accountability Office and the Special Inspector 
General overseeing the TARP rescue funds.
  But my own personal request to the automakers is that they look deep 
inside and unearth the roots of the problems that--independently of 
both the current financial crisis and the legacy costs that they have 
faced that other manufacturers have not--have caused them to lag behind 
their competitors overseas. It is important for us all to remember that 
it was General Motors that established the Saturn Corporation more than 
two decades ago, with the goal of creating a manufacturing plant from 
scratch to build small cars of superior quality and value, combining 
what was then the most advanced technology with the newest and most 
efficient and environmentally responsible approaches to management. 
Indeed, within a decade, Saturn achieved those goals by producing a car 
that J.D. Power & Associates ranked behind only the Lexus and the 
Infiniti, luxury cars produced by Toyota and Nissan overseas, for 
customer satisfaction in 1992.
  And it was General Motors, again, that developed the EV1 electronic 
car more than one decade ago, in response to California's then-zero-
emissions requirement. The EV1 was a sleek, fast, powerful vehicle than 
ran on an overnight charge in the garage, and it was the much-beloved 
means of transportation for numerous well-known Hollywood celebrities. 
And yet, within a decade, the EV1 had all but disappeared from the 
roads and most of them--as graphically depicted in the documentary 
``Who Killed the Electric Car''--were actually destroyed. If we don't 
understand all of the reasons why the success of GM's Saturn venture 
waned, or why the GM EV1 was all but wiped from the earth, we will 
never relaunch a sustainable auto mobile industry in this country.
  But we are here today because the United States remains in the throws 
of a financial crisis, and it is incumbent upon the government to act. 
Although I regret that already-authorized TARP funds are not being used 
for this purpose, and that the plan before us will in part 
cannibalizing the very funds authorized to facilitate the efforts of 
the automakers to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles, I will stand 
firmly behind our auto industry under the conditions the leadership 
have negotiated, rather than let it fail and disappear. I look forward 
to working with the new administration to craft a more sustainable, 
fiscally responsible solution to this problem in the coming months.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of taking tough but 
absolutely necessary action to help save thousands of jobs that affect 
every State in our Union including my home State of Missouri. Our 
country is experiencing a crisis and the problems facing automakers 
must be fixed to help stabilize our entire economy.
  Missouri has the second-highest number, along with Ohio, of 
automobile plants in the Nation just after Michigan, but the truth is 
this problem is much larger than the Big Three. A failure of the auto 
manufacturing industry not only directly affects the dealerships, 
parts-makers, those with existing car warranties, it also puts 
thousands upon thousands out of work--3.3 million nationwide after 
direct and indirect hits are factored. Our country is already facing 
historically high unemployment. We cannot afford to let our 
manufacturing industry fail; we cannot afford to lose 3.3 million more 
American jobs.
  Missouri has already been hit hard by auto manufacturing line 
closures in addition to layoffs crossing all sectors of the economy. 
The ramifications of doing nothing would be detrimental to our Nation's 
already crippling economy. In my home State of Missouri, thousands of 
jobs are on the verge of being permanently lost. The auto industry's 
roots in our State's economy are far reaching. This is a necessary 
investment for America's future.
  Realizing that as soon as next year, or even sooner, we could lose 
General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford is a main street dilemma that 
requires immediate attention and action by Congress. Without action, we 
are putting our Nations' economic and national security at risk. Make 
no mistake, the loss of the American automobile industry, will cripple 
communities throughout Missouri and throughout our Nation.
  There have been decades of foot dragging to produce smaller more 
fuel-efficient vehicles right here in the U.S. while U.S. subsidiaries 
are producing and selling these vehicles overseas with huge success. 
It's time for the American people have the same opportunity to purchase 
these vehicles. Everyone understands that was a huge mistake and we 
must do everything possible to correct it.
  In the past, loans to the industry have actually paid off for the 
American taxpayer, and this bill does everything possible to ensure 
this will happen again. This bill institutes safeguards to protect 
taxpayer dollars and promotes future financial and economic success for 
our country. If the automakers do not present a feasible restructuring 
plan to get back on the right track early next year they will be cut 
off.
  I want to make one point clear to the auto industry: loans given to 
them by the American people should be used to invest in America's 
interests. I don't want to hear about taxpayer dollars being used to 
build plants overseas. We are facing record-high unemployment. We must 
do everything we can to put people back to work.
  Besides the plant jobs, the auto part jobs, and the service industry 
jobs that are intertwined with their manufacturing, will be the 
shuttering of businesses that rely on the employment of tens of 
thousands in my home State alone, more than 3 million nationwide.
  Bankruptcy of one or more of the Big Three poses a huge risk. Mere 
questions of warranty and availability of parts, could trigger the 
collapse of manufacturing causing deep rooted problems that affect 
everyone.
  American innovation and engineering may be close to delivering the 
most energy efficient cars the world has ever known and the United 
States desperately needs. American innovation has been, is, and must 
continue to be the world's leader.
  While it is evident that the Big Three have made mistakes, it's 
important to note that market share is not down, and overall car sales 
worldwide are down across the board. Other countries continue to 
augment their manufacturers. For years foreign manufacturers have not 
had to absorb escalating healthcare costs. Ironically, in the U.S. many 
of these foreign manufacturers enjoy a variety of tax credits and tax 
liability waivers.
  I have met and consulted with a wide-range of Missouri stakeholders 
including the Big Three, suppliers, UAW members, and auto dealers. All 
of the stakeholders are going to have to make concessions to put 
together a sustainable plan for the future. It's important that 
everyone come together for the greater good. Everyone loses if our auto 
industry goes bankrupt.
  This comprehensive legislation will help the struggling U.S. auto 
industry in the short term, while protecting millions of American jobs 
and taxpayers. The limited loans of $14 billion are intended to help 
the struggling automakers survive while they prepare plans to 
restructure their companies to build more competitive, fuel-efficient, 
and technologically advanced vehicles.
  This country should not give up on our automotive industry. If the 
auto industry doesn't make real progress by early next year we can and 
should reevaluate leadership and if need be demand the repayment of 
loans sooner rather than later.
  It's important to recognize that this problem is just one piece to a 
complicated economic mess. We must get the auto industry back on their 
feet and we must get credit in the hands of the American people so that 
they can receive the loans necessary to purchase the next generation of 
American ingenuity.
  I'm hopeful Americans will again prove to the world that we can 
overcome competing interests and rally together for the common good.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is about to embark upon 
another corporate bailout--this time for Detroit's Big Three 
automakers--without any assurances to the taxpayers that it won't be 
back for more. In fact, from all news reports, while this bailout comes 
with a starting price of $15 billion, Congressional leadership 
negotiating the deal fully expects that this is just the beginning and 
that taxpayers will be hit up again in the new year.
  Though the already-passed $700-billion Wall Street bailout has had 
little to no success, Congress is about to go down this same road 
again. And, it appears that it does so with few qualms about the impact 
of its actions on hard-pressed taxpayers.
  We hear promises of strict oversight and accountability measures--but 
who does the Congress think it's kidding?
  Already two nonpartisan, independent panels have lambasted Treasury 
for its execution of the current bailout scheme. The Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) scathing report about the Federal 
Government's poor oversight says it all in the title: Additional 
Actions Needed to Better Ensure Integrity, Accountability, and 
Transparency.
  Why should taxpayers expect the government's oversight of this 
bailout be any different?
  Unfortunately, the Democrat-led Congress has chosen to blindly oblige 
Big Labor at

[[Page H10928]]

every turn, regardless of whether it's in the best interest of 
taxpayers.
  They have dismissed consideration of alternative proposals that could 
truly restructure these companies over the long-term and help them rein 
in costs.
  They don't want Ford, GM and Chrysler to reorganize under the 
protection of the bankruptcy courts, even if it would save them without 
a taxpayer bailout, because it means that they would actually make 
structural changes and renegotiate labor contracts without the threat 
of outside lawsuits.
  The Democrats have already spent more than a trillion dollars in 
bailouts this year--why not a few billion more?
  Mr. Speaker, the hardworking men and women in America did not sign up 
for this.
  They did not turn over their hard-earned money to Uncle Sam just so 
Congress can dole it out to unaccountable companies that made poor 
business decisions for years.
  Throwing taxpayer money at Detroit's spiraling problems will not fix 
their long-term management and productivity troubles and they will only 
be back for more time and time again.
  Congress should not look the other way and put the taxpayers, and 
their children and grandchildren, on the hook for billions more in 
unaccountable spending.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7321, Auto 
Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.
  The automobile industry is one of the most critical manufacturers and 
job providers in the country and in North Carolina. Automobiles account 
for $690 billion, or about twenty percent of all retail sales in the 
United States. Over 4.5 million jobs in the United States depend on 
these 3 companies, and my State of North Carolina would stand to lose 
over 95,000 jobs with an auto industry shutdown. There are over 692 
new-vehicle dealerships in North Carolina as well as hundreds of auto 
parts suppliers. These dealerships are often economic hubs of many of 
our small towns. The fallout of such a shutdown would be felt 
throughout all sectors of our economy and on almost every main street 
in America.
  H.R. 7321 would provide the necessary financial assistance to keep 
our largest automobile manufacturers in business. Today's spiraling 
economy has been particularly devastating for the 3 largest automakers 
in the United States. Car sales are slumping sharply in the face of 
recession and the stagnant credit market has paralyzed these companies 
in the middle of their restructuring efforts. It has also left dealers 
unable to help finance most of their customers and move automobiles off 
of the lot.
  H.R. 7321 would allow the President to designate one or more officers 
in the Executive Branch to oversee approximately $14 billion in bridge 
loans or lines of credit to the requesting companies. H.R. 7321 
includes many taxpayer protections to help ensure that the government 
is repaid, including providing for stock in the company equal to 20 
percent of the loan amount, and giving the government ``super 
seniority'' designation of the loans to ensure that the taxpayer is 
first in line to be repaid by the companies. In addition, the bill 
forbids bonuses or incentives for the 25 most highly paid employees in 
each company, and strictly prohibits ``golden parachutes'' during the 
life of these bridge loans. Furthermore, the President's designee will 
have a strong oversight role. The designee must establish appropriate 
measures to assess the restructuring plans, and evaluate the progress 
of each auto manufacturer within 45 days in order for loans to be 
approved. In order to qualify for any bridge loan, the auto company 
will have to submit a plan to achieve long-term viability, 
international competitiveness, energy efficiency, and plans for 
repayment of the government loan.
  It is crucial that our Nation's leading automakers continue to 
restructure in order to meet the demands of a changing market, and to 
become healthier companies that can help lead American manufacturing in 
the future. Such healthier companies can continue to provide an 
economic engine to our Nation and provide innovations that can drive 
future growth.
  I regret that these bridge loans are necessary, but today we can ill 
afford to risk the loss of more jobs and further damage to the economic 
base that our cities and small towns depend on in North Carolina and 
across the country. I support H.R. 7321, Auto Industry Financing and 
Restructuring Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for 
its passage.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
disappointment that the House has once again been forced to consider 
legislation to rescue some of America's most important and renowned 
companies. I regret the need to cast this vote, but I believe voting 
for this legislation is the better choice.
  Congress cannot allow the Big Three automakers to go out of business. 
They are too important to our economy and our national security. In my 
district alone there are more than 3,000 jobs directly dependent on the 
auto industry, accounting for salaries of more than $150 million 
annually. The industry is a significant contributor to the tax base of 
New York State, which is already facing severe financial turmoil.
  Beyond its economic importance, maintaining a successful domestic 
automobile industry is vital for the long term interests of the United 
States. There are certain industries which we must maintain 
domestically for national security reasons. During World War II, the 
automobile industry led the way in the conversion to a war economy by 
altering their manufacturing plants to make armored vehicles and tanks 
instead of cars and trucks. Few companies still maintain that capacity, 
and so for that reason alone we cannot let the industry fail.
  We need to help the auto industry, but I do not believe we should be 
giving a blank check to anyone. That is why I appreciate the work this 
Congress has done to make the legislation tolerable. This is not a give 
away. We are voting on a loan which I expect to be paid back, and paid 
back with interest. It has protections for the taxpayers. As long as 
the loan remains outstanding, no dividends can be paid, no executive 
bonuses or golden parachutes can be issued and the government will 
receive warrants for equity value equivalent to part of the value of 
the loan. In addition, this loan takes legal priority over every other 
debt and obligation the companies face.
  I am disappointed about provisions that this bill does not contain. I 
recognize that the presidentially appointed overseer will have a great 
deal of power to force specific changes in the way our Nation's auto 
industry does business, but I would have preferred to see many of these 
changes specifically tied to the loans by this legislation. For 
example, in their presentations last week, the CEOs of General Motors, 
Ford and Chrysler claimed that with these loans they will be able to 
meet and even exceed the increased CAFE standards Congress finally 
mandated last year. I believe that they should be required to do so by 
the legislation. It is critical that, over the coming months, Congress 
exercises the necessary oversight to make sure that the Big Three keep 
their word.
  I would have liked to see clear goals that required a set percentage 
of products produced by the auto companies to be high-efficiency 
vehicles. I would have liked to see a commitment from the automakers to 
make hybrid technology options more prevalent and available more often. 
I would like to see more substantial investment made into research and 
development for new, greener, energy-efficient technology. Perhaps most 
importantly, I would have liked to see a guarantee of true reform, 
starting from the top, in how these companies do business and the kinds 
of cars they produce and sell. Taxpayer-supported companies cannot be 
allowed to continue the sort of ill-advised business decisions the 
industry has been making the last few years.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that today will be the first step towards the 
beginning of a new era for U.S. automakers. Congress is doing what we 
must, stepping in and saving the manufacturers, but we are not doing so 
without a commitment for genuine and long lasting reform on their part.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7321, the Auto 
Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.
  Our country is mired in the worst economic crisis since the Great 
Depression. We have been in recession for well over a year. 
Manufacturing activity and vehicle sales are at a 26-year low. 
Unemployment is at a staggering 6.7 percent. Over half a million jobs 
were lost in November alone. Since the Bush Administration took over in 
January of 2001, unemployment has risen by 71 percent.
  The domestic automobile industry and its blue collar workforce have 
been especially hard hit by this current economic crisis. Over the last 
several weeks, I've heard a lot of blame being passed around for the 
situation our car companies find themselves in. I agree with those who 
say the Big Three have been too rigid in their opposition to building 
more fuel efficient cars. I believe strongly, as many Americans do, 
that the Bush Administration and Congress have not done enough to 
create and protect American jobs. But it is not the auto executives or 
politicians who are suffering. It's the hard working UAW members who 
spend every day on an assembly line to support their family. They are 
the victims of corporate greed, bad business models, and government 
indifference. They are the reason we are here today, months after 
Congress adjourned for the year.
  The consequences of a collapse of the domestic auto industry would be 
catastrophic for working families. Recession would spiral into 
depression. Millions of jobs would be lost. It is something we must 
prevent.
  The bill before us gives $15 billion in conditional loans to the auto 
industry to help them survive over the next few months. During that 
time, they will be required to achieve viability, international 
competitiveness, fuel efficiency,

[[Page H10929]]

and reduced emissions. The bill gives the President the authority to 
appoint a ``car czar'' who will be responsible for ensuring these 
conditions are met. If the car czar determines that the companies have 
not made themselves viable by the end of March, they will be required 
to pay back the government immediately. If the companies utilize this 
line of credit wisely and restructure into successful, sustainable 
operations, they will still have to pay the money back with interest, 
but the government will have the opportunity to turn a profit by 
gaining equity in these companies. Furthermore, the car czar will have 
the authority to prevent an automaker from closing the doors of any of 
its factories or from outsourcing its operations to another country, 
should the czar determine such an action detrimental to the viability 
of the company.
  Like all legislation, this bill is not perfect. But it is necessary. 
Letting the auto industry collapse would unfairly punish America's 
workers for sins they did not commit.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
our Nation's workers. The workers who built this country following 
depression and war. I rise in support of this loan program for our 
Nation's automobile manufacturers.
  Just last Friday the Department of Labor reported that employers 
slashed 533,000 jobs in November: the most jobs lost in 34 years. As a 
percentage, this figure now jettisoned our Nation's unemployment rate 
to 6.7 percent; the largest one-month decline since December 1974. 
Overall, since the start of the current recession, the United States 
has shed 1.9 million jobs, 1.3 million of which has disappeared in the 
last 4 months. In the manufacturing sector, manufacturing jobs lost in 
November alone come to a total of 85,000. In fact, in the last 4 months 
we have witnessed the disappearance of 258,000 manufacturing jobs, and 
since the outset of the recession last December, over half a million 
(604,000) manufacturing jobs have been lost.
  So with regard to the question of whether or not to assist our 
Nation's domestic auto manufactures, given that the Big Three 
automakers generate one out of every 10 jobs in our Nation, merely 
letting these businesses go bankrupt is simply not an acceptable 
option. Indeed, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler account for roughly 
70 percent of U.S. auto production and are estimated to support around 
5 million jobs across all 50 states. And according to a report released 
last week by the Center for Automotive Research, the failure of even 
one U.S. automaker would mean the loss of millions of jobs and cost our 
economy hundreds of billions of dollars.
  Employment for millions of hard working Americans depends on a strong 
domestic auto industry. And nations throughout the world, such as 
Japan, South Korea, and France support their domestic auto industries, 
so we certainly would not be creating a precedent or an unfair playing 
field with respect to international trade. Indeed, President-elect 
Obama stated just last week that ``the auto industry is the backbone of 
American manufacturing and a critical part of our attempt to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil. . . .'' Given that our government recently 
provided a tremendous amount of financial assistance ($700 billion) to 
sustain our country's financial sector, I believe that to provide 
assistance with strong federal oversight to our Nation's automakers is 
critical to our workforce.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bridge loan for 
the American automotive industry.
  Last month the heads of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler came to 
Congress seeking a $25 billion emergency bridge loan. They each flew to 
Washington on corporate jets without a credible restructuring plan for 
long-term viability and profitability. The message they got from 
Congress was, ``no plan, no money.''
  Last week the CEOs returned to Washington with detailed plans to 
create new, lean, profitable, and competitive companies. Their plans 
include manufacturing more fuel-efficient cars and crossovers, 
concessions from the United Auto Workers, more streamlined companies 
with less brands and retail outlets, reductions in manufacturing and 
structural costs, as well as many other necessary elements to make the 
companies viable again.
  Through bipartisan negotiations with the White House, the 
Congressional leadership has produced legislation that offers the 
ailing automakers a $15 billion bridge loan if they agree to strict 
oversight of their finances and business practices.
  Many people have suggested that bankruptcy is a better option for the 
automakers. A recent study by an automotive research firm found that 80 
percent of car buyers would switch brands if the vehicle they want 
comes from an automaker that has filed for bankruptcy. If the companies 
are forced into bankruptcy it would ultimately lead to liquidation 
which would lead to even more turmoil in our economy. Manufacturing 
facilities would close immediately. Hourly and salaried employees would 
lose their jobs and the small businesses that provide parts and 
services to the automotive industry would lose billions of dollars if 
the ``Detroit 3'' went into liquidation. These devastating losses would 
be felt nationwide and our economy can't afford it.
  The ``Detroit 3'' automakers have made numerous bad decisions in the 
past and no one has been more critical of them than I have, but 
allowing them to fail would cause a chain of events felt well beyond 
Detroit. Job losses would occur in every sector, from the engineers 
needed to design the cars, to the car dealership employees that make 
their living selling them. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 
the U.S. could lose up to 3.3 million jobs if one or more of the 
automakers fail. The same study found that California alone could lose 
up to 305,900 jobs. A shutdown of the auto industry would have a 
catastrophic effect on an economy that is already in historic distress. 
That's why prudent steps must be taken to prevent this from happening.
  H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act will 
give the participating automakers a $15 billion, 7-year bridge loan at 
a 5 percent interest rate for the first 5 years and a 9 percent 
interest rate thereafter. The funding for these loans will come from 
$25 billion that Congress already approved in Section 136 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
  The bill incorporates strong protections and numerous oversight 
provisions to protect the American taxpayer. It includes the creation 
of a ``Car Czar,'' a person to be appointed by the President in order 
to oversee the loan program. This oversight official would also have 
the power to negotiate with creditors, unions and other stakeholders in 
the restructuring process.
  The car companies are barred from paying bonuses to their executives 
and barred from paying dividends to shareholders while the loans are 
outstanding. The bill also gives the government an equity stake in the 
companies so that taxpayers will benefit when the companies return to 
profit. It also mandates that the automakers submit to an audit by the 
Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General for the 
Treasury's financial bailout program.
  I voted ``yes'' today because I believe that the stakes are too high 
for the economy to not do anything. Without the bridge loan to the 
American automakers we will put the jobs of millions of Americans at 
risk and impose further strife on our economy. Their failure would 
reverberate far beyond the manufacturing sector and a bridge loan to 
keep these companies viable while they restructure is necessary to 
protect the economy in this financial crisis.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7321, the 
Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, which would provide $15 
billion in bridge loans for the Big 3 domestic automakers, to help them 
weather the current credit crunch and financial crisis.
  These loans are critical for the survival of our domestic automakers, 
our manufacturing sector, and the American middle class.
  One in ten American jobs are linked to the auto industry. Chrysler, 
Ford and General Motors support about 5 million American jobs. More 
than 1 million American workers and retirees are directly employed or 
supported by the major automakers. Two million Americans receive health 
care benefits through the auto industry. An estimated 3 million jobs 
would be lost in the first year if the American automakers collapsed--
nearly three times the jobs lost nationwide this year.
  The Ann Arbor-based Center for Automotive Research estimates that the 
collapse of the domestic auto industry would mean an estimated 2.5 
million jobs lost over the next year, costing Federal, State, and local 
governments a total of $50 billion next year and $108 billion over the 
next 3 years.
  In my district, the dramatic drop in demand for new cars and trucks 
is already taking a toll on parts suppliers and our domestic steel 
industry. At Cliffs Natural Resources' Tilden and Empire mines in 
Marquette County, reduced demand for iron ore to produce steel for the 
automakers has led to the layoff of 350 workers. The closure of the 
Dura Automotive Systems plant in Antrim County caused 300 jobs to be 
lost. Lexamar in Boyne City had to layoff 90 workers, Northern Tool in 
Mio laid off 68 workers, H&H Tube in Cheboygan closed causing 60 jobs 
to be lost, and layoffs at more than a dozen other suppliers to the 
automakers across northern Michigan are the result of the current 
economic crisis.
  What we are debating today is not new. In 1979, the Federal 
Government provided Chrysler a $1.5 billion loan. Chrysler paid back 
the full amount with interest in 4 years, and operated successfully for 
2 decades because of this assistance.
  Why are some of my colleagues so willing to spend more than $700 
billion to help Wall Street, but so hesitant to assist an industry that 
creates so many middle-class jobs?
  According to data analyzed by ABC News, in 2007, Wall Street's five 
biggest firms--Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill 
Lynch, and Morgan Stanley--paid a record $39 billion in bonuses to 
themselves.

[[Page H10930]]

  Those 2007 bonuses were paid, even though the shareholders in those 
firms last year collectively lost about $74 billion in stock declines--
their worst year since 2002.
  If split equally among the approximately 186,000 employees at the 
former Big Five Houses, that bonus money means an average of $201,500 
per employee--almost six times the $34,076 median household income in 
my district last year.
  Instead of preserving $200,000 bonuses, Congress should be preserving 
American middle class jobs.
  In addition, the legislation we are considering today has greater 
oversight and stronger taxpayer protections than the Wall Street 
bailout.
  There were four main principles that should have applied to the Wall 
Street bailout: transparency and accountability; no windfalls or golden 
parachutes for executives; strong oversight by Congress; and effective 
taxpayer protections. The Wall Street bailout final bill did not 
contain these safeguards.
  The auto loan legislation Congress is considering today provides 
greater transparency, stronger restrictions on executive compensation, 
tough oversight provisions, and more taxpayer protections.
  This legislation requires a commitment on the part of auto 
executives, employees, labor unions, dealers, suppliers, creditors and 
shareholders to participate in the restructuring efforts that will 
ensure the long-term viability of an industry that helped create this 
Nation's middle class.
  The jobs of millions of middle-class Americans and the pensions and 
benefits of millions more depend on a vibrant domestic auto industry.
  The automakers are not asking for a handout. They are asking for a 
loan, which in the current credit crisis only the Federal Government 
can provide.
  This legislation includes strong protections for the taxpayers and I 
have every confidence the loans will be paid back with interest and the 
result will be a stronger auto industry and a stronger American 
economy.
  As the automakers implement restructuring plans and the economy 
improves, these loans will have laid the groundwork for the recall of 
laid-off workers and the creation of new jobs.
  Doing nothing is not an option. Inaction by Congress would cost the 
American taxpayers more than this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important loan 
assistance for the automakers, to preserve middle-class jobs and 
improve our economy while protecting taxpayers!

                                        LAYOFFS/CLOSURES IN MI-01 IN 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Company                          City                Date            Accident type       Layoffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jacquart Fabric Products, Inc......   Ironwood..............       1/29/2008   Mass Layoff..........         11
 Citizens Bank......................   Hancock...............        4/9/2008   Mass Layoff..........         21
 Khoury Furniture...................   Kingsford.............        9/9/2008   Mass Layoff..........          7
 Fayas and Sons.....................   Kingsford.............      10/22/2008   Plant Closing........         12
 Lloyd/Flanders.....................   Menominee.............       11/5/2008   Mass Layoff..........          7
 Cleveland-Cliffs (Tilden Mine).....   Ishpeming.............       11/7/2008   Mass Layoff..........        200
 Cleveland Cliffs (Empire)..........   Negaunee..............       11/7/2008   Mass Layoff..........        151
 Pardon, Inc........................   Gladstone.............      11/24/2008   Mass Layoff..........         10
 Engineered Machine Products........   Escanaba..............      11/24/2008   Mass Layoff..........         20
 Bill Burton & Sons.................   Newberry..............       3/25/2008   Plant Closing........         14
 Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians....   Sault Ste. Marie......       8/11/2008   Mass Layoff..........         75
 H & H Tube.........................   Cheboygan.............        1/7/2008   Plant Closing........         60
 Cooper Standard Automotive.........   Gaylord...............       8/28/2008   Mass Layoff..........          8
 Northern Tool......................   Mio...................      10/30/2008   Plant Closing........         68
 Lexamar Corp.......................   Boyne City............       2/22/2008   Mass Layoff..........         90
 Maverick Metal Stamping............   Mancelona.............       3/19/2008   Plant Closing........         40
 Dura Automotive Systems............   Mancelona.............        4/1/2008   Plant Closing........        300
 Traverse Bay Manufacturing.........   Elk Rapids............       7/14/2008   Plant Closing........         25
 Odawa Casino.......................   Petoskey..............       8/19/2008   Mass Layoff..........         69
 Manthei, Inc.......................   Petoskey..............       8/25/2008   Mass Layoff..........         14
 Charlevoix Manufacturing Co........   Charleviox............       8/25/2008   Mass Layoff..........         18
 Northern Michigan Review...........   Petoskey..............       9/12/2008   Mass Layoff..........         11
 East Jordan Iron Works.............   East Jordan...........      10/16/2008   Mass Layoff..........         41
 Anchor Danley......................   Bellaire..............      11/20/2008   Mass Layoff..........         12
 Sure Shift Transmissions...........   Kawkawlin.............       3/27/2008   Plant Closing........          5
 Magline, Inc.......................   Pinconning............       5/27/2008   Mass Layoff..........          5
 Tubular Metal Systems..............   Pinconning............        8/6/2008   Mass Layoff..........         11
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Total layoffs..................  .......................  ..............  ......................     1,305
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is based on data from the State of Michigan, regional labor centers and media accounts. It should not
  be considered comprehensive.

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7321, the Auto 
Industry Financing and Restructuring Act. It is clear that the auto 
industry itself carries a great deal of responsibility for the crisis 
it faces today, due to an inability or unwillingness to take the steps 
necessary to compete in a 21st century market. Nonetheless, I recognize 
the urgency of extending federal loans to Detroit's automakers, as 
their collapse could trigger massive job losses and ripple effects 
throughout a wide range of industries. One in ten American jobs is 
linked to the domestic auto industry, and it is estimated that as many 
as 10,000 jobs could be affected by its failure in my home state of 
Rhode Island.
  To win my support, it was imperative that this bill place strict 
conditions and requirements on the automakers receiving assistance, and 
I believe it meets that test. These companies will have to submit a 
final and acceptable long-term restructuring plan by March 31, 2009, 
and if adequate progress has not been made by February 15th, 2009 on 
efforts to stabilize the auto industry, the companies will be forced to 
repay their loan. Their restructuring plans must show how the companies 
will achieve long-term viability, international competitiveness and 
energy efficiency. Furthermore, upon enactment of this bill, the 
administration must immediately appoint a ``car czar'' to monitor the 
progress of these plans. This designee will also have veto power over 
company expenditures of more than $100 million. H.R. 7321 also demands 
accountability to taxpayers by banning golden parachutes to company 
executives, bonuses for the 25 most highly paid employees, and 
corporate jets. Finally, a company may not pay dividends to 
shareholders over the duration of the loan.
  Mr. Speaker, our domestic car manufacturers have made some unwise 
business decisions in the past. However, the fall of the U.S. auto 
industry would be a devastating blow to our already fragile economy, 
impacting millions of workers and countless businesses, large and 
small. Today, we have the opportunity to give these companies a chance 
for survival and to point them in the right direction for our future 
needs as a country, which includes a strong manufacturing base for 
fuel-efficient vehicles. I encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 
7321 and in support of the future of our country's auto industry.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I think it is reasonable 
to assume that I am not alone when I say that my office has been 
contacted with hundreds of phone calls and e-mails asking Congress not 
to spend billions more to bailout the Big 3 American automakers. 
Congress has already asked the American taxpayer to stomach a $700 
billion package of economic relief aimed at unfreezing the credit 
markets. It is wrong to ask American families to trust that billions in 
bailout relief for three specific companies will do anything but cement 
a dangerous and expensive precedent for future big government spending 
and control of a vital industry in America.
  In fact, at this time the credit markets have not been unfrozen after 
the onslaught of this recent economic downturn, and I hope Congress, 
this current administration, and the incoming administration will 
ensure that the programs we have passed into law already are 
implemented and reviewed. Recent reports of a failure to adequately 
utilize the oversight mechanisms outlined in the economic rescue 
package are troubling. The taxpayers deserve to know that we are 
following the letter of the law.
  Nevertheless, the debate today is on whether we should give $15 
billion dollars to help shore up the books of General Motors, Ford, and 
Chrysler. The primary argument that continues to be made in support of 
this bailout is predicated upon the claim that bankruptcy is not an 
option. Never mind that other companies and industries--most notably 
the members of the airline industry--have successfully emerged from 
bankruptcy stronger, more agile, and successful. We have a bankruptcy 
process in place, the sole purpose of which is to deal with 
circumstances similar to those that GM, Ford, and Chrysler face. 
Unfortunately, in typical Washington fashion, Congress wants to 
reinvent the wheel and create a new process and a new bureaucratic 
office in the form of a ``Car Czar.'' Such a redundant proposal would 
be slightly less harmless were

[[Page H10931]]

a $15 billion taxpayer funded price tag not tacked onto it. But it is.
  The bankruptcy process that already exists does not spell the end of 
a company or the loss of every one of their jobs. The scare tactics 
that have been spread around that without this multi-billionaire 
bailout, the American auto industry would disappear is just not the 
case. In fact, bankruptcy procedures would allow the companies to 
restructure to make them competitive in the global market. Bankruptcy 
is never an ideal situation for any company but it is far more 
preferable to spending billions of taxpayer dollars and ceding control 
to big government.
  It should be noted that opposition to this massive bailout is not a 
commentary on my or my colleagues' support for the American auto 
industry. We represent American automotive dealerships, American 
automakers, parts manufacturers, the people they employ, and in many 
instances, we own American automobiles. We want to see these companies 
prosper, build the future fleet of automobiles for the world to drive, 
and continue to employ millions of hardworking Americans. What many of 
us are unwilling to accept is the suggestion that taxpayers need to be 
signing the check to keep particular businesses in a particular 
industry afloat when there is a sound, bankruptcy process already 
available.
  It is clear from every angle that the American auto industry needs to 
make some dramatic changes to their business model and to the current 
agreements they have with the unions who represent their employees. 
These changes will make them financially stronger and more competitive. 
It will help protect current and future employees. They can accomplish 
this without a taxpayer funded bailout, and it would be unwise to 
betray the interests of American taxpayers by choosing to simply throw 
money at the problem.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and service of 
William Spoelhof, president emeritus of Calvin College in Grand Rapids, 
Michigan. He was born in 1909 in Paterson, New Jersey, and passed away 
on December 3, 2008, at the age of 98.
  William Spoelhof graduated from Calvin College in 1931, and began 
teaching history and civics at the secondary level. He received his 
masters of arts degree from the University of Michigan in 1937, and 
began his doctoral studies there.
  During World War II, Mr. Spoelhof enlisted in the U.S. Navy, and 
served our country in the Office of Strategic Services. Following the 
war, he completed his doctoral work, and went to Calvin College to 
teach history and political science in 1946.
  After becoming president of Calvin College, Dr. Spoelhof oversaw the 
process of moving Calvin College from its original Franklin Street 
campus, located in urban Grand Rapids, to its current Knollcrest campus 
in southeast Grand Rapids.
  Dr. Spoelhof carefully balanced the college's vision for excellent 
academics with its relationship with the Christian Reformed Church, as 
he effectively steered the college through occasional church conflicts 
and the tumultuous, nation-wide student protests of the 1960s.
  In 1976, Dr. Spoelhof announced his retirement after 25 years, the 
longest serving president in Calvin College's history. After his formal 
retirement, he was named president emeritus and maintained an office 
and steady presence at the College, offering continued support and 
goodwill whenever needed.
  Dr. Spoelhof was a Christian role model and mentor to many faculty 
members, staff and students, as he provided wisdom and counsel to 
thousands during his more than 8 decades of service to Calvin College.
  On a personal note, Dr. Spoelhof recruited me from the University of 
California at Berkeley to teach physics at Calvin College. I am deeply 
grateful for his guidance and for leading me to teach at a wonderful, 
Christian liberal arts college.
  Dr. Spoelhof is fondly remembered for his contributions to daily 
discussions with retired faculty and students at the ``Emeritorium'', 
and for his kind words to passers-by around the campus.
  In 1935, William Spoelhof married Miss Angeline Nydam, and they had 
three children, Robert Spoelhof, Elsa Scherphorn, and Peter Spoelhof. 
Ange, as Dr. Spoelhof lovingly called his wife, passed away in 1994.
  Dr. Spoelhof lived a life of gratitude, and desired to bring God 
glory in all he did. On December 3, 2008, the Calvin College community 
lost a visionary leader and wise friend. He is to be honored and 
recognized for his outstanding devotion and service as a member of the 
military, a Calvin College professor, and president and friend.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, no one wants to see the auto industry fail. 
I don't want to see this. This would result in millions of job lost. I 
don't, however, believe this is the right approach for the long-term 
viability of the American auto industry and the sustainability of 
millions of American workers.
  In October, the Treasury Secretary came to Congress asking for a $700 
billion blank check for the financial industry. I said then and I 
repeat today, a quick bailout fix might work for a short time, but it 
may not be long before we are asked again for more tax dollars. In 
fact, some have said the $15 billion being given to the auto 
manufacturers will get them through to March 2009. Then what? A quick 
bailout fix might work for the short term, but without addressing the 
underlying problems, we will be asked again for more tax dollars.
  We cannot keep passing bailout after bailout without fundamental 
reforms to help American workers and businesses achieve long-term 
prosperity. The plan offered today offers more government involvement 
instead of incentives for private-sector solutions. We are placing 
risks on the American taxpayer that private investors are not willing 
to take. Furthermore, this bill does nothing to address economic 
competitiveness barriers faced by the American automotive industry.
  I also strongly oppose the job-killing provision contained in this 
bill that would ban these automakers from leasing or owning business 
jets. The use of business jets by company leaders is not why the U.S. 
auto industry is in financial trouble. This provision is a symbolic 
slap in the face to more than 1.2 million workers spread across every 
State whose jobs depend on general aviation. Banning our automakers 
from leasing or owning jets makes as much sense as asking them to stop 
using BlackBerrys and laptops--tools that have made us the most 
efficient and productive workforce in the world.
  I remain committed to working for a long-term solution with Democrats 
and Republicans who are willing to put the good of our country ahead of 
short-term fixes. It's the right thing to do.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The 
truth is that the ``Big Three'' didn't get into this position 
overnight. They are suffering from decades of poor management 
decisions, uncompetitive labor agreements, and failure to stay at the 
cutting edge of innovation. And while this bailout may provide some 
short-term relief for these companies, it doesn't fix their fundamental 
problems.
  My constituents want to know why their tax dollars should be used to 
bail out companies that haven't been willing to make the necessary 
changes to stay competitive. They also want to know where we will draw 
the line. Lots of businesses are hurting because of this recession. How 
many more bailouts will they be asked to pay for? We all know that this 
$14 billion is only the first installment. Until these companies are 
thoroughly restructured and modernized, they will just keep coming back 
for more taxpayer money.
  As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I'm also concerned by 
the last-minute inclusion of a provision that requires the federal 
government to insure certain leases that the IRS has ruled are illegal 
tax shelters. Taxpayers who play by the rules certainly don't want to 
see a bailout for agencies that participated in questionable tax deals. 
The collapse of AIG does raise some difficult issues, but this 
provision needs more consideration and should not be in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an all-around bad deal for the taxpayer. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, since World War II, America's middle class 
has been built and strengthened by the auto industry--not just by the 
companies that make cars and trucks but also by those that make parts 
for them. In Missouri, the auto industry is particularly important to 
our economy, creating hundreds of well paying jobs in Kansas City and 
St. Louis, and in smaller towns like Sedalia and Versailles.
  Sadly, because of a variety of conditions that have been made worse 
by the global credit crisis, the auto industry has fallen on terribly 
difficult times and is on the verge of collapse. The urgency of the 
automakers' troubles has prompted our debate today in Congress.
  The auto industry is unique in our country and must be given a chance 
to restructure and become more viable into the future. Without 
assistance, the industry will likely fail and millions of jobs will be 
in jeopardy.
  Today's legislation has been carefully written with views 
incorporated from Congressional Republicans and Democrats and from the 
President. It would provide immediate help to the auto industry and its 
employees while simultaneously forcing them to become leaner, greener, 
and more competitive in the 21st century.
  The bill would authorize a loan of up to $15 billion to the car 
companies in exchange for their promise to draw up more realistic 
business plans. To ensure the industry restructures according to the 
law, a powerful ``car czar'' would manage the process and have a great 
deal of authority with respect to lending money and recalling loans, if 
necessary.
  The bill would further protect taxpayers by allowing them to profit 
from a participating

[[Page H10932]]

companies' recovery and by requiring that the government be repaid 
before other lenders. It also would prohibit auto company shareholders 
from earning dividends during the life of the loans, would ban 
excessive corporate pay and the ownership of private aircraft by auto 
companies, and would require strong, independent oversight by the 
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office.
  I am unhappy that we find ourselves considering a loan of such 
magnitude to America's auto industry. But, after careful consideration 
and review, I am convinced that inaction by Congress would be far more 
catastrophic to American workers, to the fragile economy, and to our 
country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7321. With this 
vote today, the Congress is acting decisively to protect American auto 
workers and dealers in every Congressional district in the country and 
sets Detroit on the path to near-term and long-term economic viability.
  We cannot forget that the auto industry is the backbone of our 
domestic manufacturing sector--the very sector which drives our 
economy. Additionally, should one or more of the Big Three automakers 
fail, it would mean the loss of more than 100,000 jobs directly 
associated with the industry in my home state of Michigan and more than 
3 million jobs around the country indirectly associated with the 
industry, such as auto dealers and auto part suppliers.
  At the same time, I and my fellow Members in the Congress are wary of 
bailing out or rewarding companies that have so often pursued their own 
interests at the expense of the public good. Whether it was fighting to 
undermine more demanding fuel efficiency standards or dragging their 
feel when it came to developing electric car and hybrid technology, the 
Big 3 are in a large way responsible for the predicament they find 
themselves in today.
  Now, the executives of Big 3 have come to Capitol Hill, not as titans 
of industry, but as caretakers of uncompetitive behemoths on the verge 
of collapse. They are in no position to make demands of the American 
people and the aid offered by the Congress today reflects that reality.
  I believe that the aid package offered to the Big 3 here today 
extracts real, tangible, expansive reforms from the industry. With this 
bill we are sending a clear message to Detroit: If you are to survive, 
you must dramatically alter your business models, slim your corporate 
structure, spin off unprofitable lines, invest in the technologies of 
the future, and, above all else, cease producing the gas-guzzling steel 
chariots of the past. There is no alternative to these reforms. This 
bridge loan will only work if it truly serves as a bridge to the future 
and not as a cushion slowing inevitable decline.
  Over the last month, there has been much discussion about the need 
for a strong central figure to oversee the dramatic changes being 
undertaken by the auto industry. I called for the creation of such a 
position and I am heartened to see that an auto czar-type position is 
established with this legislation.
  If Detroit does its part, the Congress can and will do much to make 
the American auto industry the world and industry leader it once was. 
The $25 billion authorized in the 2007 Energy Bill and appropriated by 
the Congress to retrofit the Big 3's aging factories was a step in the 
right direction. It was my hope that this money would be left untouched 
during the current debate, so that it could continue to further the 
original purposes the Congress intended. I remain hopeful that the $15 
billion appropriated for the auto companies in this Act will be 
refunded when we return in January with a larger Democratic majority 
and a change-minded new President.
  Let me be clear--this bill is far from perfect. I would have 
preferred that a provision that mandates that bridge loan recipients 
withdraw from their suit against California's higher tailpipe emission 
standards remain in the bill. Stripping this provision will accomplish 
little. As my colleagues in the upper body, Senators Dianne Feinstein 
of California and Bill Nelson of Florida, have noted, GM and Ford have 
laid out business plans indicating that they intend to outperform the 
California fuel economy standards within a few years anyway. The fact 
that blocking these suits would have absolutely no effect on the Big 
3's bottom lines makes these taxpayer subsidized lawsuits even more 
outrageous.
  I also think we must acknowledge the failures in leadership which 
have contributed to the dire straits the Big 3 find themselves in at 
this time. The New York Times and others have called for the 
resignation of the Big 3's CEOs, citing their complicity in the current 
crisis and their lack of foresight and competitive instincts. I support 
this call because even now, there is tremendous evidence that the 
leadership of the Big 3 just doesn't get it.
  Just today, in an interview on Fox News Channel, GM Vice Chairman Bob 
Lutz stated that Americans want more sports utility vehicles and large 
pickup trucks and that small vehicles are a bad investment.
  I strongly encourage the ``Auto Czar,'' or ``President's Designee'' 
as it is referred to in this legislation, to push for the removal of 
any and all executives at the Big 3 who stand in the way of a greener, 
more fuel efficient auto industry.
  Finally, it should not go unnoticed that during the final legislative 
debate overseen by the 43rd President of the United States, the current 
Administration chose to fight tooth and nail against strong measures 
aimed at furthering the fight against global warming and promoting 
energy independence. We are only here today because Treasury Secretary 
Paulson could find $300 billion to invest in Wall Street financiers who 
manipulated securities and other financial tools for a living, but 
couldn't find $15 billion to help working men and women who create 
products made and consumed here in the United States of America. 
Instead of gracefully acknowledging the will of the American people, 
this lame duck President yet again fought against progress. It is a 
fitting reminder of the politics that we leave behind with this vote 
today and, hopefully, of the brighter days that await us.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, please let the record 
reflect that had I been present to vote on final passage for H.R. 7321, 
the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, I would have voted 
``nay.'' This bill is a vague and ambiguous attempt to restructure the 
domestic auto industry and lacks the specificity necessary to protect 
taxpayers. This bill does nothing to guarantee that once domestic 
automakers receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money that they will 
become independent of government funding.
  The bill was introduced after 11 a.m. on December 10, 2008. However, 
the House began consideration of the bill at 2:30 p.m. the very same 
day. It is unreasonable to expect Members of Congress to take their 
first vote in less than five hours after a bill has been made public. 
If this language would have been made available at least 24 hours 
before being voted upon, I would have had adequate time to travel to 
Washington to cast this important vote. This is not the ``open and fair 
government'' that Democrats have promised.
  Other than being in Washington waiting for last-minute legislation to 
be introduced and voted on, Members of Congress have additional 
responsibilities and other obligations to their constituents that are 
just as important. This week, I have been in my district meeting with 
my constituents on various issues including ongoing international 
conflicts.
  I am disappointed and appalled that Democratic leadership has treated 
American taxpayer money in such an irresponsible manner.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. LaTourette

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk that I 
am offering with my good friend Al Green of Texas made in order under 
the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 110-922 offered by Mr. 
     LaTourette:

     SEC._NEW LENDING THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO TARP INVESTMENTS AND 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       Section 7(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ( U.S.C. 
     1817(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(12) Lending increases attributable to investment or 
     other assistance under the troubled assets relief program.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each report of condition filed pursuant 
     to this subsection by an insured depository institution which 
     received an investment or other assistance under the Troubled 
     Assets Relief Program established by the Emergency Economic 
     Stabilization Act of 2008 or section 136(d) of the Energy 
     Independence and Security Act of 2007 shall report the amount 
     of any increase in new lending in the period covered by such 
     report (or the amount of any reduction in any decrease in new 
     lending) that is attributable to such investment or 
     assistance, to the extent possible.
       ``(B) Alternative measure.--If an insured depository 
     institution that is subject to subparagraph (A) cannot 
     accurately quantify the effect that an investment or other 
     assistance under such Troubled Assets Relief Program has had 
     on new lending by the institution, the insured depository 
     institution shall report the total amount of the increase in 
     new lending, if any, in the period covered by such report.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1534, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in very shaky opposition, I 
start out claiming the time, but I am open minded on the subject, so I 
claim the 5 minutes.

[[Page H10933]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
recognized in opposition for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Chair for his wholehearted opposition to 
the amendment.
  Basically a couple things. I want to thank the chairwoman of the 
Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for making this rule in order and give 
a shout out to Betty Sutton, my fellow Ohioan who is on the committee 
that advocated that this be made in order. And I don't know if the 
Speaker is still on the floor, but, Madam Speaker, you can now take 
credit that this was the only amendment offered. It's made in order. 
You have a complete open rule on this piece of legislation; so it's a 
day of celebration.
  The way this came about is to date we have given away about $335 
billion of TARP money, a bill that I opposed along with a number of my 
colleagues, and the intended purpose doesn't appear to have happened. 
People aren't being kept in their homes. People have to have perfect 
credit scores to buy a car, and they're using the funds, some banks, to 
buy other banks. In Cleveland, PNC will use $7 billion to buy National 
City Bank.
  This amendment is simple. Chairman Frank has had excellent oversight 
hearings, but the fact of the matter is the answer we are getting from 
Treasury is there's no way to track this, and they say the bankers come 
in and say, sure, we're going to spend the money the way we are 
supposed to, but nobody knows. It's inconceivable to me that we can't 
figure out where the money is going and they can't be made to certify 
that they're spending it for what we thought they would spend it for. 
So I called Chairman Frank, and I said can we get this done? And he 
said, well, find Al Green. And I called Al Green, and we worked 
together on a stand-alone bill. This may be the last day we're going to 
be here until the next administration comes in. I think we need to know 
where the 335 went before January 20.
  So knowing this legislation was coming up, we drafted an amendment, 
Al Green and I, and we are going to introduce a stand-alone bill 
tomorrow, I guess. But it basically says that if you've taken $400 
billion of TARP money, you have to certify on your quarterly report 
that you've engaged in new lending and show us how you've done it and 
if not, why not. And it's a reasonable amendment. I urge support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as evidence of my open-
mindedness here and being willing to listen, I will yield 2 minutes to 
our very able committee colleague and cosponsor of this amendment, Mr. 
Green.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. And I 
especially thank the chairman for the outstanding job that he's done on 
the broader bill. I thank Mr. LaTourette for the service that he has 
rendered with reference to putting this amendment together. While I 
take a small amount of assurance in knowing that I may have been there, 
it was really his stalwart work that made the difference in getting the 
amendment through.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to say that this amendment is one that 
should please persons on both sides of the aisle. Today in the 
Financial Services hearing there was much talk about transparency and 
talk of how we should be able to acquire the empirical evidence to 
ascertain whether or not new lending is taking place. This piece of 
legislation, this amendment, will, in fact, allow us to get some idea 
as to what's happening with the money as it relates to transparency.
  So I thank the chairman for allowing this opportunity to speak on the 
amendment, and I thank Mr. LaTourette for his outstanding work on the 
amendment.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time before I yield to my next 
speaker, I just want to say that Mr. Green is hiding his light under a 
bushel basket. His assistance in the drafting of not only this 
amendment but also the stand-alone legislation was invaluable, and I 
appreciate Chairman Frank putting the two of us together.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to my 
colleague from Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the LaTourette 
amendment.
  Transparency is vital to the success of the congressional action with 
the TARP, and we know that when Congress intended to get help for 
consumers, unless you have transparency, you don't know if consumers 
are actually going to be helped. The LaTourette amendment resolves that 
question. I thank him for introducing it, and I urge its approval.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 
30 seconds to the distinguished ranking member of the Financial 
Services Committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, in the capital injection program, the bank 
signed a statement that they will use the money for the purpose 
intended, and that purpose is to lend. This amendment will give an 
assist to that.
  They are not lending. They should lend. They were given money to 
lend. They have signed a document that they will lend, and this will go 
a long way towards ensuring that. So I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I don't have any further speakers, and I would just 
yield myself the balance of the time and indicate that I think it's a 
good amendment.
  Listen, we were told, even though I didn't support the TARP Program, 
we were told, it was advertised as this money was going to free up 
credit, free up interbank lending, help people buy cars, help people 
who are subject to foreclosure stay in their homes. Just today, on the 
front page or in the business section of the Wall Street Journal, one 
of the companies that has received billions of dollars is now engaged 
in about $10 billion of speculative losses rather than doing the 
intended purpose.
  All this amendment says is until the Obama administration gets in 
place, in fact, they have to file, on their report, on December 30, 
that if they took money, if they wanted to participate--nobody put a 
gun at their head and said you have to participate--but if you 
participate in the program, and you take billions of dollars from the 
taxpayer, you have to demonstrate that you are engaged in new lending. 
That's all there is to it.
  In the brief amount of time that I have left, I would just ask the 
chairman a procedural question.
  I think it's a good oversight vote that every Member would want to be 
recorded on. I am mindful of people wanting to catch airplanes. Do you 
think we should have a recorded vote on this or not?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield, yes, we will 
have a recorded vote on this.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Perfect.
  I yield back the balance of my time, urge support of the amendment 
and thank Mr. Green for his help.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I believe I have 3 minutes remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I intend to use the 3\1/2\ minutes 
to speak enthusiastically for this amendment now for a couple of 
reasons.
  First, the merits of the amendment. We were told by the Treasury 
Department that they would get more lending done. Some people unfairly 
said that the bill we passed didn't have good oversight. It had a 
number of pieces of oversight, including the best oversight you can 
have in this Federal Government, the Government Accountability Office, 
an outstanding organization.
  We worked with them, and they were there on the first day of this 
program. We had a briefing with them. They have given us a report, and 
the report said that Treasury was not doing a good job of seeing 
whether the people who received the capital injections were, in turn, 
lending.
  We heard that anecdotally, we got a confirmation that Treasury wasn't 
measuring. What particularly distressed me was Treasury didn't say, 
well, you don't understand how hard it is. Treasury said, you are 
right, we are not going to try, that we will judge the overall success 
of the program without doing that.
  Now, I will give Mr. Kashkari credit. Today, at a hearing we held--
and we called a hearing just to deal with this

[[Page H10934]]

issue--he indicated they now do plan to do it. But I think given the 
initial reluctance, this amendment is very important.
  For Members who voted for the TARP and want to see that vote 
vindicated, you need to vote for this amendment, because it makes it 
valid. But there is one other thing you have to do. Let me ask you 
another procedural question. This is the last train out of the 
legislative station this year.
  So I would advise Members, if you believe that we need to put 
pressure on the Treasury to have the TARP do more lending, you have to 
do two things. You have to vote for the LaTourette amendment, but then 
you have to vote for the underlying bill. Because I would advise 
Members, if you vote for the LaTourette amendment, and you then vote 
against the bill, Mr. Speaker, I would caution Members going back to 
their districts and taking credit for having voted for an amendment 
into a vehicle which they then crashed into the sea.
  So the only way the LaTourette amendment will have any effect, and I 
hope it will have effect because it's important, is if the bill to 
which it is about to be attached passes.
  So I congratulate the gentleman on an extraordinary amendment. I am 
envious that I didn't think of this strategy to help get the bill 
passed, but I will acknowledge my strategic better in this case. That 
may sound ironic, but it's the case.
  If you vote for the LaTourette amendment--which I think does a very 
important job of improving the TARP--and you then vote against this 
bill, you have completely and totally negated it.
  Now you may, Mr. Speaker, have Members here who find it of value to 
be on both sides of this issue, to take credit for improving the TARP 
in theory, but disimproving it in practice, but I would hope that most 
of us would not want to be in that position. So I urge Members to vote 
for this, and having voted for this important thing, the gentleman is 
right, the gentleman from Ohio, he did put it in a separate bill. But 
that separate bill is not going anywhere.
  There will be no further legislative work. So if you believe that we 
need to have the banks who have not been lending, and who have received 
part of the TARP, relend, vote for the amendment, and vote for the 
underlying bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1534, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 403, 
noes 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 689]

                               AYES--403

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Campbell (CA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Cleaver
     Costa
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     Doolittle
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Everett
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hooley
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keller
     Kuhl (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Nunes
     Peterson (PA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Renzi
     Rohrabacher
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Snyder
     Tancredo
     Walberg
     Watson
     Weldon (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2027

  Mr. FLAKE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 170, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 26, as follows:

[[Page H10935]]

                             [Roll No. 690]

                               AYES--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--170

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hobson
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Campbell (CA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Costa
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     Doolittle
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Everett
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hooley
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keller
     Kuhl (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Peterson (PA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Renzi
     Rohrabacher
     Sensenbrenner
     Snyder
     Tancredo
     Walberg
     Watson
     Weldon (FL)

                              {time}  2046

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________`