December 11, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10919 

anything to say of importance, and he 

was confirmed. 

But a confirmation hearing is not a 

coronation, particularly when there 

are questions out there that need to be 

conducted in the right way. I think, 

first, that Senator SPECTER is well 

within propriety and collegiality to 

ask that we not start this hearing so 

soon. Second, we need to be sure there 

is enough time set aside that it can be 

fairly discussed. And I will not go into 

the allegations that are out there, but 

I wish to say that not rushing this 

nomination through is not some sort of 

partisan attack, but instead a duty 

that must be performed. 

Let me say that commentators and 

newspapers across the spectrum have 

raised questions about the nominee. 

The Senate has been called upon to do 

its job and ask the kinds of questions 

that need to be asked and clear the air 

on some of these allegations. And I 

hope Mr. Holder is able to do so. 

The New York Times, a strong supporter of President-elect Obama, more 

and more known to be a liberal newspaper, said this recently: 

Mr. Holder . . . must answer serious questions before the Senate votes on his confirmation. 

They had an editorial on this subject 

and seemed to be troubled by the nomination and flatly stated that we should 

look at that seriously. 

The Wall Street Journal said this: 

For a politicized Justice Department, none 

can compare to the Clinton Administration’s, and the role that Mr. Holder played in 

it deserves the fullest airing before he is 

given the opportunity to return. 

To return—he was Deputy Attorney 

General under President Clinton, the 

second in command in the Department 

of Justice. 

Richard Cohen from Mr. Holder’s 

hometown paper, the Washington Post. 

Mr. Cohen, who I think it is fair to say 

is a liberal columnist, certainly not a 

conservative, I think probably recognized as a Democrat, had some strong 

words. This is what Mr. Cohen, a longtime columnist, wrote in the Washington Post: 

Holder was involved, passively or not, in 

just the sort of inside-the-Beltway influence 

peddling that Barack Obama was elected to 

end. He is not one of Obama’s loathed lobbyists; was merely their instrument—a good 

man, certainly, who just as certainly did a 

bad thing. Maybe he deserves an administration job, just not the one he’s getting. 

Well, in October of last year, before 

the election and after Attorney General Gonzales was forced to resign because really he did not manage his Department well—I think little has 

shown that he had a malicious intent, 

but he was forced to resign, and the 

chairman and the ranking member, 

Chairman LEAHY, the Democrat, and 

the ranking Republican, Senator SPECTER, published a joint op-ed in the Politico newspaper. They made clear that 

they expected the next nominee to be 

independent of political influence and 

loyal to the rule of law, and the Department of Justice personnel. 

They said this: 

The attorney general must hold everyone, 

no matter how powerful, accountable to the 

law. Any nominee must have a visceral commitment to pursuing and achieving justice, 

and a record of doing just that. 

They went on to say: 

Finally, the attorney general must be 

someone who deeply appreciates and respects 

the work and commitment of the thousands 

of men and women who work in the branches 

and divisions of the Department of Justice 

day in and day out, without regard to politics or ideology, doing their best to enforce 

the law and promote justice. 

Well, I agree with that. So I would 

hope that in the process going forward, 

that we do take the time to analyze 

some of these allegations and dig into 

why Mr. Cohen, or the New York Times 

or the Wall Street Journal has expressed serious reservations about this 

most important nominee. 

The Marc Rich pardon—let me tell 

you why that is troubling to me as a 

longtime U.S. attorney. Very few people obtain pardons. That is just the 

way it is. Thousands apply. I have a 

bunch of them who write me right now, 

and they want me to help them get 

their pardon. Little people, who committed small drug crimes; maybe 

forged a check; maybe did something 

that violated Federal law in some fashion, are convicted and charged, and 

they do not get pardons. In fact, the 

process is set up with a pardon attorney. They have to complete their time 

in prison, they have to complete their 

parole, and only after a period of time 

of good behavior, only after that does a 

pardon attorney even consider their application for a pardon. But the President of the United States is constitutionally empowered 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent for 1 additional 

minute. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. SESSIONS. So the President is 

constitutionally empowered to do the 

pardon. 

So in the instance of Marc Rich, this 

was a major fraud case. He was indicted—one of the largest fraud cases 

in the country. He was a fugitive. He 

never reported and answered the indictment against him, as I understand. 

He was a fugitive, at least, and did not 

come and show up for trial. For some 

reason, over the strong objections of 

the prosecutor involved in the case, the 

President of the United States, with a 

positive recommendation from thenDeputy Attorney General Holder, 

granted that pardon. Of course, we 

know that through some method, Marc 

Rich—he, or people close to him, had 

been a very substantial contributor to 

matters of importance to the Clintons, 

to President Clinton personally. It was 

not a good deal. That was not a good 

deal. It was wrong. And every little 

person who has asked for a pardon and 

did not get it and deserved it 99 times 

more than Marc Rich did has a right to 

be offended. The rule of law and the respect for the Department of Justice 

was definitely lowered by that act. I 

wish Deputy Attorney General Holder 

had done the right thing, which was 

tell President Clinton: President Clinton, you cannot do this, and if you do 

this, my resignation will be on your 

desk. I cannot serve in an administration that would issue this pardon. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized. 

Mr. CARPER. I do not know Eric 

Holder, whom President-elect Barack 

Obama has nominated to serve as our 

next Attorney General. I had an interesting conversation with one of the 

topmost senior people within the Department of Justice, serving in the current administration, who described the 

nomination as ‘‘a brilliant choice.’’ So 

we will find out whether it was. 

Before I came here, I served for 8 

years as Governor. At one time, I was 

State treasurer, as my colleague, the 

Presiding Officer, was, both treasurer 

and insurance commissioner for the 

State of Florida. I served on the Board 

of Pardons as State treasurer for 6 

years and then later on as Governor for 

another 8 years to consider the recommendations of the Board of Pardons 

as to whether people should have a sentence commuted or whether they 

should be pardoned for some crime 

they had committed. I always got advice from our legal counsel, got advice 

from the Board of Pardons itself, but in 

the end the buck stopped with me as 

the Governor, and I made the decision. 

Whether it was well received or not, I 

never blamed my counsel for the advice 

he or she had given me. At the end of 

the day, I think that is probably the 

case at the Federal level as well. 

But we look forward to receiving the 

nomination and having a full hearing, 

a fair hearing so that this nominee can 

defend himself, present his case and his 

credentials to us. I hope what the senior Department of Justice official said 

to me about this nomination, that it 

was a brilliant choice, will indeed 

prove to be the case. 

f 

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY LOAN 

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, what I 

want to do is take the next 8 or 9 minutes to talk about the issue we are 

waiting for, waiting to address here 

hopefully later this evening, and the 

issue is whether we are going to provide—not a grant, not a gift, not a bailout to two auto companies, GM and 

Chrysler, but whether we are going to 

provide them a loan. 

Some of you recall 28 years ago when 

Chrysler was in difficult straits and 

their CEO, Lee Iacocca, called on the 

Federal Government to provide a loan. 

We did not do that; we provided a loan 

guarantee. Chrysler made a lot of 

changes within the company to reduce 

their costs, to make them a low-cost 

provider of vehicles, and they came 

back to health. The loan was repaid. 

Federal taxpayers actually made 

S10920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 11, 2008 

money, about $300 million on the deal, 

because we had taken—in return for 

taking on the risk of making that loan, 

we got warrants, and we converted 

those warrants into stock, which 

Treasury sold and made about $300 million. 

Today, I think the thing that has 

been dragging this process down is the 

question of, as we think about providing a loan to Chrysler and a loan to 

General Motors, what can we do to 

make sure that within that company— 

labor, management, bondholders, lenders, dealers—how do we best ensure 

that they are going to make the further sacrifices, shared sacrifices, to 

make GM and Chrysler a lower-cost 

competitor, so that when they emerge 

from this process and begin operating 

with these loans, how can we make 

sure they will be successful, not just 

for a couple of months but how are we 

going to be encouraged that they will 

be successful for years—actually, for 

decades, as Chrysler was subsequent to 

our 1980 involvement. 

The two positions that we are looking at—one is a negotiated deal by the 

White House and by Chairman DODD

and others here in the Senate that says 

we want to put in place a car czar—sort 

of like a trustee, if you will, almost 

like a bankruptcy trustee—whose job it 

would be to work with the relevant 

stakeholders, folks I already mentioned—labor, management, lenders, 

bondholders, dealers and others—to ensure that they make the kinds of sacrifices and reductions that will lead to 

making GM and Chrysler more vibrant, 

more competitive when the economy 

recovers and people start buying cars, 

trucks, and vans again. So on the one 

hand, that is what the administration 

has proposed and what Senator DODD

and others have negotiated with them. 

On the other hand, we have some of 

our friends on the Republican side here 

in the Senate who believe it is appropriate for the Senate almost to sort of 

stipulate the conditions of this shared 

sacrifice, almost for the Senate to 

serve not exactly but kind of like the 

bankruptcy judge or almost to be the 

car czar itself and to put those changes 

in legislative language. 

So those are sort of the two positions 

where we are, and we have been sort of 

in a logjam for much of the day. I am 

encouraged that there is still good will 

on both sides, and a lot of folks have 

been involved in these negotiations. 

Hopefully, we are finally coming closer 

to some consensus, and not one where 

we actually have the Congress playing 

the role of bankruptcy judge but we do 

take some steps to better ensure that 

the additional cost savings that are 

needed are realized so that these companies will be successful for a long period of time. 

I rode down on the train today. Before I got on the train, I ran into somebody. Like our Presiding Officer, I like 

to work out almost every day. I 

stopped off at the central YMCA in 

Wilmington. While I was there, this 

one fellow who had just bought a Chevrolet came up to me. 

He said: Tell me that if you all are 

going to do something, I will still have 

a dealer to take my car to to have it 

serviced and for the warranty to be 

good. 

I said: There is nothing I can promise 

you for sure, but we don’t want to just 

walk away from the industry and see 

these folks go down. 

But I am convinced there are a lot of 

people who, frankly, would like to 

drive a car, truck, or van, and they 

might want to buy a product from 

Ford, Chrysler, or GM. Before they do 

that, they want to make sure the dealer and the company will be around for 

a while, for however long they will own 

their vehicle, so if they do have a problem and it needs warranty work they 

will get that; if they have a problem in 

the years ahead and they need parts, 

they can get them; if they need service, 

they will be able to get that as well. 

That uncertainty is keeping people 

from buying vehicles. 

The other factor is the captive financing arms of the car companies— 

GMAC, Chrysler Financial, and Ford 

Financial. They not only help provide 

people who want to buy cars with loans 

to enable them to buy their vehicles, 

they also help finance dealer inventory. If a dealer wants to finance inventory, they have to get the money 

from someplace. Sometimes they can 

get it from the local banks, sometimes 

they can’t. Sometimes they get that financing from the captive finance vehicle of each of the auto companies. 

The captive financing arm also will 

make loans and then they will take 

those loans and bundle them and 

securitize them and sell them around 

the country and around the world to 

provide more money to be used to either finance auto loans or, in some 

cases, finance the inventory for dealers 

to put on their parking lots and showrooms. As we go through this, one of 

the things we have to do is not only 

hopefully work out this deal so we figure out who is going to play the role of 

the Federal bankruptcy judge with respect to these two companies, without 

going into bankruptcy, so we can make 

sure these companies will be around 

and provide warranty work and parts 

and service, but how do we make sure 

the captive financing arms start working again as they are supposed to. 

We have a lot of banks that haven’t 

been providing the kind of loans to 

families, small businesses for working 

capital, for kids to go to college and 

people to buy homes and cars. We have 

been working on that for a couple 

months. Liquidity is freeing up a little 

bit. But as we deal with that and with 

the more immediate issue of the nearterm survival of Ford and Chrysler and 

GM, it is important that we also keep 

in mind the captive finance arms and 

how we can make sure they are in a position, like banks being able to lend 

money, the financial arms of the car 

companies are able to lend money as 

well. That may be a battle for another 

day but not very far down the line. 

I am encouraged that some progress 

is being made. I wanted to express my 

thanks for the people of Delaware. We 

have a Chrysler plant in my State that 

has been there for about 60 years. We 

make the SUVs for Chrysler. We build 

the Dodge Durangos and the Chrysler 

Aspens. They were selected as the best 

SUVs in terms of quality by JD Powers. That plant will be closed in 20 

days, a plant that I have worked to 

keep open for 28 years. It is painful for 

me and for the people who have worked 

there, who still work there. But it is 

going to happen. We have a GM plant 

not far from there in Wilmington 

where we make all the Saturn Skys. 

We not only sell those in this country, 

we sell them around the world. We export them to South Korea. We sell the 

Saturn Sky in about 15 or so countries 

in Europe. It is a very good vehicle. We 

are proud of the work they do. I have 

believed over the years in making sure 

these plants stay alive and make a 

good product. They do a great job on 

quality, productivity, and labor-management relations. We are very proud 

of both plants and their workforce, 

management and labor people, and the 

record they have achieved. 

We want to make sure our Chrysler 

plant, as they are shut down and a lot 

of people are going to be losing jobs, we 

want to make sure the folks who work 

there, the people who build the Durangos and Aspens, we think those are 

hands that can also build windmill turbines for the windmill farm we will put 

off the coast of Rehobeth Beach starting a year or two from now. Those are 

hands that can build solar energy panels and can build homes with geothermal heating and cooling, can build 

a new nuclear powerplant on the other 

side of the Delaware River. There is 

plenty they can do in terms of providing clean energy, in terms of providing us with a reduction in fossil 

fuels, and to enable us to build products that we can sell around the world 

to reduce our trade deficit. I think it is 

important, as we face a very sad closure of our Chrysler plant in Newark, 

that we have in place not just in Newark but in all kinds of plants around 

the country training programs that 

will help people who have a good work 

record. They want to be gainfully employed. They have good skills. Let’s 

make sure they have the opportunity 

to find jobs where they can make a real 

contribution. 

I see we are joined by the Senator 

from Utah who may or may not want 

to speak. He is approaching the Presiding Officer. It is always good to 

work with him. His presence always 

augers well for us doing something constructive. Keep up the good work. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

December 11, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10921 

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 

be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, earlier in the week I pointed out that I believe the best way for the big three 

automakers to reorganize, come out 

lean and aggressive and competitive, 

was through the reorganization procedures in chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. So many companies have 

taken advantage of it over the years. It 

is the regular order, as we say in the 

Senate. It is what happens when companies are not able to meet all of their 

debt obligations and payments. When 

this happens they seek protection 

under chapter 11. 

The bankruptcy court has a desire 

that those companies be successful; 

that they continue to operate; that 

people are not laid off; and that the 

business is not liquidated as it would 

be if it had filed under chapter 7 of 

bankruptcy code. In chapter 11, every 

effort is made to help the company to 

survive; to eliminate the burdens and 

legacy costs or other problems they 

have that are pulling them down, making them noncompetitive. 

This week, on December 9, 2008, the 

Heritage Foundation published a document called ‘‘Bankruptcy Is Best: Responding to Automakers’ Arguments 

Against Chapter 11 Restructuring.’’ Mr. 

Andrew Grossman, a senior legal policy 

analyst at the Heritage Foundation, 

writes: 

Though a bailout— 

That is the Federal Government just 

giving money to the corporations— 

may be better for the automakers’ current 

executives and shareholders, restructuring in 

bankruptcy remains the best choice for the 

automakers’ continued viability and future 

success. 

In other words, a bankruptcy restructuring and reorganization will be in the 

best interest for American workers, 

employees and people who want to buy 

American automobiles. 

We have two cars in my home in Mobile, both of them are pushing 100,000 

miles, and both of them are American 

big three automobiles. I am very happy 

with them. A lot of people want these 

automobiles. But the best way to keep 

the company going, experts say, is 

through this established legal procedure of bankruptcy, not some special 

bailout. We have heard this argument: 

Bankruptcy would lead to failure and 

millions of jobs lost. The Heritage 

Foundation responds: ‘‘Bankruptcy 

protection actually prevents failure.’’ 

Mr. Grossman notes that when a person files bankruptcy, ‘‘it does not mean 

that the business and its assets will 

‘fail’—that is, cease operations. Many 

companies, including the bulk of the 

airline industry following 9/11, have entered bankruptcy, reorganized under 

its protection, and then emerged as 

stronger, sustainable businesses.’’ 

That is so true and it is so important 

to say. Grossman and the Heritage 

Foundation went on to note: 

Once a company has filed for bankruptcy, 

it receives an automatic stay and may suspend payment of all debts, giving it breathing room to take stock of its assets and situation. 

Once you file bankruptcy, everybody 

knows about bankruptcy. I am not an 

expert, but I have been involved with it 

off and on. I helped write the 2005 bankruptcy reform bill. But in bankruptcy, 

every lawsuit, every claim against 

your money is stayed. You don’t have 

to pay them off. The judge takes over 

and makes sure that payments are 

done in a way that is fair to everyone 

concerned. 

The next argument: Automobile 

makers are too complex for bankruptcy. The Heritage Foundation report says: 

Fact: The bankruptcy process is designed 

to confront and resolve complex problems 

and has successfully done so many times in 

the past. 

By chance, one of Alabama’s best 

bankruptcy lawyers was in my office 

just yesterday. I have known him and 

respected him. He is totally independent of the circumstance. 

I asked him: What do you think? 

He said: Chapter 11 is perfect for 

these companies. It is exactly what is 

needed. It is set up to handle these 

kind of circumstances. People keep 

confusing reorganization under chapter 

11, like Delta Airlines went through, 

with liquidation under chapter 7 bankruptcy where there is no hope of saving 

the company. They are saying: If you 

go into bankruptcy, it means the company is doomed. That is not so. 

As to the complexity of the matter, 

the Heritage Foundation report says: 

‘‘It is a universal feature of bankruptcy 

law that creditors and other stakeholders’’—that is, creditors, people who 

are claiming money from GM, Ford, or 

Chrysler—that they can ‘‘be forced to 

accept concessions that are necessary 

to maximize the common pool. Thus 

some debtors may see their claims 

transformed into equities stakes’’— 

that is, stock in the company—‘‘so that 

a business, free of debt, can operate 

profitably and sustainably. Others may 

receive pennies on the dollar. Collective bargaining agreements may, as described further below, be modified to 

put costs in line with industry norms, 

and other contracts may be rejected. In 

contrast, a bailout’’—that is what we 

are talking about, giving the automakers money—‘‘fails entirely to address the complexity of the automakers’ problems. Unlike the finely 

honed tools of bankruptcy reorganization, a bailout fails to provide any 

mechanism (other than money) to restructure debt, repudiate contracts, or 

renegotiate labor agreements. In short, 

bankruptcy is a solution to the complexity.’’ 

The report goes on to say: 

And these features are most valuable in 

large and complex cases that would be impossible otherwise. 

The Heritage report goes on to note 

that chapter 11 organizations have included energy and finance giant 

Conseco; Delta Airlines; the parent corporation of United Airlines; telecom 

giant WorldCom, now MCI; Texaco; 

Adelphia Communications; and Global 

Crossing. All those have been in bankruptcy and have come out reorganized. 

The report continues: 

Despite this enormous complexity, all of 

these businesses were able to reorganize 

under the protection of the bankruptcy process and emerge as viable, competitive businesses. 

And these companies did all of this 

without, let me add, a penny of Government money being put into them. 

What about the argument that you 

could not renegotiate labor agreements 

in bankruptcy? The Heritage Foundation and Mr. Grossman found this: 

Chapter 11 provides a straightforward 

mechanism, unavailable outside of bankruptcy, to modify collective bargaining 

agreements to adapt to economic realities. 

The report sets forth some of the additional protections that labor has and 

additional proofs that have to be made 

to modify a labor contract, but the evidence is taken, and labor contracts can 

be modified to help make the business 

viable. But do not miss the fact that 

the law provides workers a very fair 

chance to defend their legitimate interests. 

The report concludes on this question: 

Thus, the bankruptcy judge has significant 

discretion and power to push the parties toward an agreement that is mutually acceptable, conforms to economic realities, and ensures that the business is able to return to 

profitability. 

They go on and note about the bailout, however: 

A bailout, in contrast, would likely provide 

no new legal authority to achieve this result. 

Now, there is an argument being 

made that restructuring in bankruptcy 

would not work because sufficient 

debtor-in-possession financing is not 

available for an automaker in the current economic climate. Let me explain 

how debtor-in-possession financing 

works. If a company were to file for 

chapter 11 protection, then a judge 

takes control, has hearings and listens 

to testimony, keep in mind there is a 

stay in place that holds off the debtors 

making claims for money, that judge 

then may find that for the company to 

survive, it may need to borrow more 

money. The court can induce a private 

lender to loan the corporation money, 

that is, financing a debtor who remains 

in possession. That lender then gets a 

priority over every other claim to the 

company because it is the money that 

keeps the company surviving. 

I would say that were this scenario to 

play out, as I just described, I would be 

quite willing to consider legitimate assistance from the Federal Government 

in a way that would provide maximum 

protection to the taxpayer and would 

also provide a maximum opportunity 

for the company to be successful. That 

is the way the law provides for. That is 

the way every corporation I know of 

S10922 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 11, 2008 

that gets in trouble has to be handled. 

I do not see the advantage of providing 

one special industry billions and billions of dollars bailout when we know 

this $14 billion is just the first installment. One economist has predicted it 

would be $75 billion to $125 billion before we are through. So this minimal, 

legitimate government assistance as a 

provider of debtor-in-possession financing would be a better way to do it. 

Proponents of chapter 11 for automobile companies include Luigi 

Zingales of the University of Chicago 

and Edward Altman of New York University’s Stern School of Business. 

They explain how this government supported debtor-in-possession mechanism 

operates. They note that: 

This option would be superior to a nonbankruptcy bailout because it would provide 

greater protection (bankruptcy’s ‘‘super-priority’’)— 

To the person who puts in the money 

at the end to make the company viable— 

to taxpayers, would do more to force the 

automakers to reform their operations while 

providing them greater flexibility to do so, 

and would be more likely to succeed. 

I know some ideas have been floated 

recently; that our distinguished colleague, Senator CORKER from Tennessee, has proposed that we may well 

be able to accomplish most of these 

things without going into bankruptcy. 

We are studying that. But his proposal 

has the hammer that if agreements are 

reached to modify and protect the companies from claimants, then they 

would be required to go into bankruptcy. 

One of the problems of Congress trying to fix the problem and the automakers not going into bankruptcy is a 

constitutional problem. Bankruptcy 

courts modify in part and sometimes 

invalidate in part, and entirely, portions of contracts. That is a great 

power and the Constitution provides 

for this use of bankruptcy. 

I am not sure we in Congress can pass 

a law that could invalidate contracts. I 

have argued we should go in that direction always, I hope my colleagues understand, under the belief that this is 

the regular order; this is the proper 

legal way for a company to reorganize 

itself and survive if it is in financial 

difficulties. 

We need to quit giving special privileges where they are not needed. Such 

behavior ought to be kept to the most 

narrow, special benefits outside of the 

traditional free market principles that 

have made this country great. If we 

have to go around them or violate 

them or bend a bit because of the size 

and the number of people who might be 

involved, well, let’s do so within our 

heritage as much as possible, within 

the rule of law as much as possible. I 

think that is the best way to do it. 

So I wished to share my thoughts 

with my colleagues. I would urge them, 

if they are interested in the details, to 

look into the Web site of the Heritage 

Foundation to examine what this 

bankruptcy report study shows and 

why, according to their report: ‘‘Bankruptcy Is Best.’’ I believe it is. 

I thank the Chair and also express 

my appreciation for what I understand 

to be some progress toward reaching a 

proposal we could vote on in this body 

that would be much better than the 

one that has originally been put forward by the Democratic leader and the 

White House. I do not think the President or the Democratic leader has it 

right. I think a lot of other Members of 

this body do not feel like they have it 

right. What we need to do is to do what 

we can to assist these companies 

through a very difficult period of time, 

to give them an opportunity to eliminate some of the excessive burden they 

have been carrying so that when they 

enter into the race to the competitive 

marketplace, they will be leaner and 

more efficient and more capable of 

being successful, more able to be competitive, and can restore their vigor 

and vitality. 

We have to do that, and they have to 

get out from under some of these burdens. I personally think the best way 

to do that is through bankruptcy. It 

may be that some of the work Senator 

CORKER and others have worked on can 

get us there in a slightly different way. 

I am open to that thought and certainly am desirous of a conclusion that 

could gain bipartisan support. 

I thank the Chair and yield the floor. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SANDERS). The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ORDER OF BUSINESS 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, approximately 20 minutes ago the negotiation 

team broke up for purposes of having 

Senator CORKER, who has worked since 

2:30 this morning on the compromise, 

see if we could get this legislation over 

the finish line. It is my understanding 

he is making a presentation to the Republican caucus as we speak, to see if 

they will accept his compromise. 

It has been a difficult negotiation, 

principally conducted by Senators 

CORKER and DODD. Senator DURBIN has 

represented me in those meetings. 

I am hopeful we can finish this matter tonight. I do not know what the 

odds are that the Republican caucus 

will accept the work done by Senator 

CORKER and others but we should know 

soon. I am sorry it is 8:30 at night and 

people have been here—I received a call 

from one Senator who has been here 

since early this morning and wishes to 

leave and come back tomorrow. There 

are other Senators who have flights 

early in the morning to go other 

places. They hope we could finish tonight. One of those other places is 

home. They have family waiting for 

them. 

I wish I could be more dictatorial and 

say we are going to vote right now, but 

I do not have that ability. If everyone 

will be patient, we should know within 

a half hour or so if they can work 

something out. 

We are ready to go. I think with rare 

exception the Democrats understand 

this is Christmas season, that there is 

a lot of hardship out there. People are 

losing their jobs, losing their homes, 

losing their cars, and losing their patience. We Democrats believe this 

Christmas season we do not need to 

pile on. If we are not able to work 

something out, 2.5 million people are 

going to be directly impacted and millions of others will be impacted. This is 

Christmastime and I hope we can give 

the American people a gift of hope that 

we are going to wind up with an automobile manufacturing industry that 

will be stronger and more reliable. Certainly that is our desire. We hope our 

friends on the other side of the aisle, 

the Republicans, will recognize the 

good work done by Senator CORKER and 

others and finish this matter tonight. 

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am dismayed by the turn of events that have 

occurred this evening. 

Our Nation faces economic conditions not seen in decades. By preventing action tonight on a plan to 

give the auto industry a chance to turn 

itself around, the minority is playing 

with fire. 

The jobs of countless workers, including thousands in Rhode Island, are 

on the line, at a time when we can ill 

afford more losses. Moreover, these 

companies going into bankruptcy could 

be far more costly to the federal government. And, as economist Mark 

Zandi testified before the Senate Banking Committee last week, if these companies are forced into bankruptcy proceedings, it would have a cataclysmic 

effect on our already fragile economy. 

The bill that Chairman DODD and my 

other colleagues worked on diligently 

had the potential to give the industry 

a chance to put its house in order while 

preserving jobs and protecting the taxpayers. I regret we did not have a 

chance to proceed to this measure, engage in vigorous debate, and make a 

judgment on the merits. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have 

been very vocal in my support of the 

U.S. auto industry and have gone on 

the record saying that we need to do 

whatever is necessary to help the auto 

industry become strong and economically viable. But we need to be realistic 

and fiscally responsible in our approach to the troubles facing this and 

other industries. I cannot support the 

proposal before us today. We simply 

cannot leave the American taxpayer 

with a tab of tens of billions of dollars 

without some serious concessions from 

the industry and some assurance of the 

domestic auto manufacturers’ longterm viability, otherwise, we are just