granule_id,date,congress,session,volume,issue,title,chamber,granule_class,sub_granule_class,page_start,page_end,speakers,bills,citation,full_text CREC-2008-12-30-pt1-PgD1333-2,2008-12-30,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate Committee Meetings,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCMEETINGS,D1333,D1333,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1333,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1333] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings (Committees not listed did not meet) No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-30-pt1-PgD1333-3,2008-12-30,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House of Representatives,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCHAMBER,D1333,D1333,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HCONRES"", ""number"": ""440""}]",154 Cong. Rec. D1333,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1333] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] House of Representatives Chamber Action The House was not in session today. The House is scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. on Saturday, January 3, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 440." CREC-2008-12-30-pt1-PgD1333-4,2008-12-30,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House Committee Meetings,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCMEETINGS,D1333,D1333,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1333,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1333] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-30-pt1-PgD1333-5,2008-12-30,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Next Meeting of the SENATE + Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES + Other End Matter,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDENDMATTER,D1333,D1334,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1333,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Pages D1333-D1334] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (USPS 087�09390). The Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, D.C. The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported by the Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directions of the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting very infrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed one time. Public access to the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user. The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from the beginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available through GPO Access at www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess. Customers can also access this information with WAIS client software, via telnet at swais.access.gpo.gov, or dial-in using communications software and a modem at 202�09512�091661. Questions or comments regarding this database or GPO Access can be directed to the GPO Access User Support Team at: E-Mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov; Phone 1�09888�09293�096498 (toll-free), 202�09512�091530 (D.C. area); Fax: 202�09512�091262. The Team's hours of availability are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, except Federal holidays. The Congressional Record paper and 24x microfiche edition will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $252.00 for six months, $503.00 per year, or purchased as follows: less than 200 pages, $10.50; between 200 and 400 pages, $21.00; greater than 400 pages, $31.50, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $146.00 per year, or purchased for $3.00 per issue payable in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. To place an order for any of these products, visit the U.S. Government Online Bookstore at: bookstore.gpo.gov. Mail orders to: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250�097954, or phone orders to 866�09512�091800 (toll free), 202�09512�091800 (D.C. area), or fax to 202�09512�092104. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, or GPO Deposit Account. Following each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents in individual parts or by sets. With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Record, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, Along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received. [[Page D1334]] _______________________________________________________________________ Next Meeting of the SENATE 10 a.m., Friday, January 2, 2009 Senate Chamber Program for Friday: Senate will meet in a pro forma session. Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11 a.m., Saturday, January 3, 2009 House Chamber Program for Saturday: To be announced." CREC-2008-12-30-pt1-PgD1333,2008-12-30,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCHAMBER,D1333,D1333,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1333,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1333] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Tuesday, December 30, 2008 [[Page D1333]] Daily Digest Senate Chamber Action Senate met at 10:30:03 a.m. in pro forma session, and recessed at 10:30:12 a.m. until 10:00 a.m., on Friday, January 2, 2009." CREC-2008-12-30-pt1-PgH-FrontMatter,2008-12-30,110,2,,,House of Representatives,HOUSE,HOUSE,FRONTMATTER,S10983,S10983,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10983,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)] [House] [Page S10983] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2008 No. 192" CREC-2008-12-30-pt1-PgS10983-2,2008-12-30,110,2,,,Senate,SENATE,SENATE,CALLTOORDER,S10983,S10983,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10983,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10983] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Senate Tuesday, December 30, 2008 (Legislative day of Wednesday, December 10, 2008) The Senate met at 10:30 and 3 seconds a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV, a Senator from the State of West Virginia. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-30-pt1-PgS10983-3,2008-12-30,110,2,,,"RECESS UNTIL FRIDAY, JANUARY 2, 2009, AT 10 A.M.",SENATE,SENATE,SRECESS,S10983,S10983,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10983,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10983] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] RECESS UNTIL FRIDAY, JANUARY 2, 2009, AT 10 A.M. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until Friday, January 2, 2009, at 10 a.m. Thereupon, the Senate, at 10:30 and 12 seconds a.m., recessed until Friday, January 2, 2009, at 10 a.m." CREC-2008-12-30-pt1-PgS10983,2008-12-30,110,2,,,House of Representatives,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10983,S10983,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10983,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10983] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [[Page S10983]] House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 11 a.m. _________________________________" CREC-2008-12-26-pt1-PgD1331-2,2008-12-26,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate Committee Meetings,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCMEETINGS,D1331,D1331,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1331,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1331] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings (Committees not listed did not meet) No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-26-pt1-PgD1331-3,2008-12-26,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House of Representatives,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCHAMBER,D1331,D1331,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HCONRES"", ""number"": ""440""}]",154 Cong. Rec. D1331,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1331] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] House of Representatives Chamber Action The House was not in session today. The House is scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. on Saturday, January 3, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 440." CREC-2008-12-26-pt1-PgD1331-4,2008-12-26,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House Committee Meetings,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCMEETINGS,D1331,D1331,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1331,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1331] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-26-pt1-PgD1331-5,2008-12-26,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Next Meeting of the SENATE + Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES + Other End Matter,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDENDMATTER,D1331,D1332,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1331,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Pages D1331-D1332] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (USPS 087�09390). The Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, D.C. The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported by the Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directions of the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting very infrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed one time. Public access to the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user. The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from the beginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available through GPO Access at www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess. Customers can also access this information with WAIS client software, via telnet at swais.access.gpo.gov, or dial-in using communications software and a modem at 202�09512�091661. Questions or comments regarding this database or GPO Access can be directed to the GPO Access User Support Team at: E-Mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov; Phone 1�09888�09293�096498 (toll-free), 202�09512�091530 (D.C. area); Fax: 202�09512�091262. The Team's hours of availability are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, except Federal holidays. The Congressional Record paper and 24x microfiche edition will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $252.00 for six months, $503.00 per year, or purchased as follows: less than 200 pages, $10.50; between 200 and 400 pages, $21.00; greater than 400 pages, $31.50, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $146.00 per year, or purchased for $3.00 per issue payable in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. To place an order for any of these products, visit the U.S. Government Online Bookstore at: bookstore.gpo.gov. Mail orders to: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250�097954, or phone orders to 866�09512�091800 (toll free), 202�09512�091800 (D.C. area), or fax to 202�09512�092104. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, or GPO Deposit Account. Following each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents in individual parts or by sets. With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Record, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, Along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received. [[Page D1332]] _______________________________________________________________________ Next Meeting of the SENATE 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, December 30 Senate Chamber Program for Tuesday: Senate will meet in a pro forma session. Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11 a.m., Saturday, January 3, 2009 House Chamber Program for Saturday: To be announced." CREC-2008-12-26-pt1-PgD1331,2008-12-26,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCHAMBER,D1331,D1331,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1331,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1331] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Friday, December 26, 2008 [[Page D1331]] Daily Digest Senate Chamber Action Senate met at 11:00:01 a.m. in pro forma session, and recessed at 11:00:11 a.m. until 10:30 a.m., on Tuesday, December 30, 2008." CREC-2008-12-26-pt1-PgH-FrontMatter,2008-12-26,110,2,,,House of Representatives,HOUSE,HOUSE,FRONTMATTER,S10981,S10981,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10981,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008)] [House] [Page S10981] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2008 No. 191" CREC-2008-12-26-pt1-PgS10981-2,2008-12-26,110,2,,,Senate,SENATE,SENATE,CALLTOORDER,S10981,S10981,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10981,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10981] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Senate Friday, December 26, 2008 (Legislative day of Wednesday, December 10, 2008) The Senate met at 11 and 01 seconds a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV, a Senator from the State of West Virginia. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-26-pt1-PgS10981-3,2008-12-26,110,2,,,"RECESS UNTIL 10:30 A.M., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2008",SENATE,SENATE,SRECESS,S10981,S10981,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10981,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10981] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] RECESS UNTIL 10:30 A.M., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2008 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until Tuesday, December 30, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. Thereupon, the Senate, at 11 and 11 seconds a.m., recessed until Tuesday, December 30, 2008, at 10:30 a.m." CREC-2008-12-26-pt1-PgS10981,2008-12-26,110,2,,,House of Representatives,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10981,S10981,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10981,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 191 (Friday, December 26, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10981] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [[Page S10981]] House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 11 a.m. _________________________________" CREC-2008-12-23-pt1-PgD1329-2,2008-12-23,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate Committee Meetings,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCMEETINGS,D1329,D1329,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1329,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1329] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings (Committees not listed did not meet) No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-23-pt1-PgD1329-3,2008-12-23,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House of Representatives,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCHAMBER,D1329,D1329,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HCONRES"", ""number"": ""440""}]",154 Cong. Rec. D1329,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1329] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] House of Representatives Chamber Action The House was not in session today. The House is scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. on Saturday, January 3, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 440." CREC-2008-12-23-pt1-PgD1329-4,2008-12-23,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House Committee Meetings,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCMEETINGS,D1329,D1329,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1329,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1329] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-23-pt1-PgD1329-5,2008-12-23,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Next Meeting of the SENATE + Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES + Other End Matter,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDENDMATTER,D1329,D1330,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1329,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Pages D1329-D1330] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (USPS 087�09390). The Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, D.C. The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported by the Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directions of the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting very infrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed one time. Public access to the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user. The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from the beginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available through GPO Access at www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess. Customers can also access this information with WAIS client software, via telnet at swais.access.gpo.gov, or dial-in using communications software and a modem at 202�09512�091661. Questions or comments regarding this database or GPO Access can be directed to the GPO Access User Support Team at: E-Mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov; Phone 1�09888�09293�096498 (toll-free), 202�09512�091530 (D.C. area); Fax: 202�09512�091262. The Team's hours of availability are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, except Federal holidays. The Congressional Record paper and 24x microfiche edition will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $252.00 for six months, $503.00 per year, or purchased as follows: less than 200 pages, $10.50; between 200 and 400 pages, $21.00; greater than 400 pages, $31.50, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $146.00 per year, or purchased for $3.00 per issue payable in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. To place an order for any of these products, visit the U.S. Government Online Bookstore at: bookstore.gpo.gov. Mail orders to: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250�097954, or phone orders to 866�09512�091800 (toll free), 202�09512�091800 (D.C. area), or fax to 202�09512�092104. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, or GPO Deposit Account. Following each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents in individual parts or by sets. With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Record, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, Along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received. [[Page D1330]] _______________________________________________________________________ Next Meeting of the SENATE 11 a.m., Friday, December 26 Senate Chamber Program for Friday: Senate will meet in a pro forma session. Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11 a.m., Saturday, January 3, 2009 House Chamber Program for Saturday: To be announced." CREC-2008-12-23-pt1-PgD1329,2008-12-23,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCHAMBER,D1329,D1329,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1329,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1329] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 [[Page D1329]] Daily Digest Senate Chamber Action Senate met at 11:00:08 a.m. in pro forma session, and recessed at 11:00:40 a.m. until 11:00 a.m., on Friday, December 26, 2008." CREC-2008-12-23-pt1-PgH-FrontMatter,2008-12-23,110,2,,,House of Representatives,HOUSE,HOUSE,FRONTMATTER,S10979,S10979,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10979,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)] [House] [Page S10979] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2008 No. 190" CREC-2008-12-23-pt1-PgS10979-2,2008-12-23,110,2,,,Senate,SENATE,SENATE,CALLTOORDER,S10979,S10979,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10979,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10979] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Senate Tuesday, December 23, 2008 (Legislative day of Wednesday, December 10, 2008) The Senate met at 11 and 8 seconds a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV, a Senator from the State of West Virginia. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-23-pt1-PgS10979-3,2008-12-23,110,2,,,APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10979,S10979,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10979,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10979] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd). The legislative clerk read the following letter: U.S. Senate, President pro tempore, Washington, DC, December 23, 2008. To the Senate: Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV, a Senator from the State of West Virginia, to perform the duties of the Chair. Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore. Mr. ROCKEFELLER thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-23-pt1-PgS10979-4,2008-12-23,110,2,,,"RECESS UNTIL FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2008, AT 11 A.M.",SENATE,SENATE,SRECESS,S10979,S10979,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10979,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10979] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] RECESS UNTIL FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2008, AT 11 A.M. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until Friday, December 26, 2008, at 11 a.m. Thereupon, the Senate, at 11 and 40 seconds a.m., recessed until Friday, December 26, 2008, at 11 a.m." CREC-2008-12-23-pt1-PgS10979,2008-12-23,110,2,,,House of Representatives,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10979,S10979,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10979,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10979] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [[Page S10979]] House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 11 a.m. _________________________________" CREC-2008-12-19-pt1-PgD1327-2,2008-12-19,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate Committee Meetings,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCMEETINGS,D1327,D1327,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1327,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1327] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings (Committees not listed did not meet) No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-19-pt1-PgD1327-3,2008-12-19,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House of Representatives,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCHAMBER,D1327,D1327,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HCONRES"", ""number"": ""440""}]",154 Cong. Rec. D1327,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1327] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] House of Representatives Chamber Action The House was not in session today. The House is scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. on Saturday, January 3, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 440." CREC-2008-12-19-pt1-PgD1327-4,2008-12-19,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House Committee Meetings,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCMEETINGS,D1327,D1327,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1327,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1327] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-19-pt1-PgD1327-5,2008-12-19,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Next Meeting of the SENATE + Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES + Other End Matter,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDENDMATTER,D1327,D1328,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1327,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Pages D1327-D1328] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (USPS 087�09390). The Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, D.C. The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported by the Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directions of the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting very infrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed one time. Public access to the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user. The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from the beginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available through GPO Access at www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess. Customers can also access this information with WAIS client software, via telnet at swais.access.gpo.gov, or dial-in using communications software and a modem at 202�09512�091661. Questions or comments regarding this database or GPO Access can be directed to the GPO Access User Support Team at: E-Mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov; Phone 1�09888�09293�096498 (toll-free), 202�09512�091530 (D.C. area); Fax: 202�09512�091262. The Team's hours of availability are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, except Federal holidays. The Congressional Record paper and 24x microfiche edition will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $252.00 for six months, $503.00 per year, or purchased as follows: less than 200 pages, $10.50; between 200 and 400 pages, $21.00; greater than 400 pages, $31.50, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $146.00 per year, or purchased for $3.00 per issue payable in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. To place an order for any of these products, visit the U.S. Government Online Bookstore at: bookstore.gpo.gov. Mail orders to: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250�097954, or phone orders to 866�09512�091800 (toll free), 202�09512�091800 (D.C. area), or fax to 202�09512�092104. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, or GPO Deposit Account. Following each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents in individual parts or by sets. With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Record, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, Along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received. [[Page D1328]] _______________________________________________________________________ Next Meeting of the SENATE 11 a.m., Tuesday, December 23 Senate Chamber Program for Tuesday: Senate will meet in a pro forma session. Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11 a.m., Saturday, January 3, 2009 House Chamber Program for Saturday: To be announced." CREC-2008-12-19-pt1-PgD1327,2008-12-19,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCHAMBER,D1327,D1327,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1327,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1327] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Friday, December 19, 2008 [[Page D1327]] Daily Digest Senate Chamber Action Senate met at 10:00:37 a.m. in pro forma session, and recessed at 10:01:04 a.m. until 11 a.m., on Tuesday, December 23, 2008." CREC-2008-12-19-pt1-PgH-FrontMatter,2008-12-19,110,2,,,House of Representatives,HOUSE,HOUSE,FRONTMATTER,S10977,S10977,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10977,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008)] [House] [Page S10977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2008 No. 189" CREC-2008-12-19-pt1-PgS10977-2,2008-12-19,110,2,,,Senate,SENATE,SENATE,CALLTOORDER,S10977,S10977,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10977,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Senate Friday, December 19, 2008 (Legislative day of Wednesday, December 10, 2008) The Senate met at 10 and 37 seconds a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the Honorable Ron Wyden, a Senator from the State of Oregon. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-19-pt1-PgS10977-3,2008-12-19,110,2,,,APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10977,S10977,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10977,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd). The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter: U.S. Senate, President pro tempore, Washington, DC, December 19, 2008. To the Senate: Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable Ron Wyden, a Senator from the State of Oregon, to perform the duties of the Chair. Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore. Mr. WYDEN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-19-pt1-PgS10977-4,2008-12-19,110,2,,,"RECESS UNTIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2008, AT 11 A.M.",SENATE,SENATE,SRECESS,S10977,S10977,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10977,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] RECESS UNTIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2008, AT 11 A.M. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until Tuesday, December 23, 2008, at 11 a.m. Thereupon, the Senate, at 10:01 and 4 seconds a.m., recessed until Tuesday, December 23, 2008, at 11 a.m." CREC-2008-12-19-pt1-PgS10977,2008-12-19,110,2,,,House of Representatives,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10977,S10977,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10977,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 189 (Friday, December 19, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [[Page S10977]] House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 11 a.m. _________________________________" CREC-2008-12-16-pt1-PgD1325-2,2008-12-16,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate Committee Meetings,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCMEETINGS,D1325,D1325,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1325,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1325] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings (Committees not listed did not meet) No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-16-pt1-PgD1325-3,2008-12-16,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House of Representatives,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCHAMBER,D1325,D1325,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HCONRES"", ""number"": ""440""}]",154 Cong. Rec. D1325,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1325] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] House of Representatives Chamber Action The House was not in session today. The House is scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. on Saturday, January 3, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 440." CREC-2008-12-16-pt1-PgD1325-4,2008-12-16,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House Committee Meetings,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCMEETINGS,D1325,D1325,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1325,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1325] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-16-pt1-PgD1325-5,2008-12-16,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Next Meeting of the SENATE + Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES + Other End Matter,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDENDMATTER,D1325,D1326,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1325,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Pages D1325-D1326] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (USPS 087�09390). The Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, D.C. The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported by the Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directions of the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting very infrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed one time. Public access to the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user. The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from the beginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available through GPO Access at www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess. Customers can also access this information with WAIS client software, via telnet at swais.access.gpo.gov, or dial-in using communications software and a modem at 202�09512�091661. Questions or comments regarding this database or GPO Access can be directed to the GPO Access User Support Team at: E-Mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov; Phone 1�09888�09293�096498 (toll-free), 202�09512�091530 (D.C. area); Fax: 202�09512�091262. The Team's hours of availability are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, except Federal holidays. The Congressional Record paper and 24x microfiche edition will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $252.00 for six months, $503.00 per year, or purchased as follows: less than 200 pages, $10.50; between 200 and 400 pages, $21.00; greater than 400 pages, $31.50, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $146.00 per year, or purchased for $3.00 per issue payable in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. To place an order for any of these products, visit the U.S. Government Online Bookstore at: bookstore.gpo.gov. Mail orders to: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250�097954, or phone orders to 866�09512�091800 (toll free), 202�09512�091800 (D.C. area), or fax to 202�09512�092104. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, or GPO Deposit Account. Following each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents in individual parts or by sets. With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Record, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, Along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received. [[Page D1326]] _______________________________________________________________________ Next Meeting of the SENATE 10 a.m., Friday, December 19 Senate Chamber Program for Friday: Senate will meet in a pro forma session. Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11 a.m., Saturday, January 3, 2009 House Chamber Program for Saturday: To be announced." CREC-2008-12-16-pt1-PgD1325,2008-12-16,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCHAMBER,D1325,D1325,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1325,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1325] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Tuesday, December 16, 2008 [[Page D1325]] Daily Digest Senate Chamber Action Senate met at 11:00:19 a.m. in pro forma session, and recessed at 11:00:50 a.m. until 10 a.m., on Friday, December 19, 2008." CREC-2008-12-16-pt1-PgH-FrontMatter,2008-12-16,110,2,,,House of Representatives,HOUSE,HOUSE,FRONTMATTER,S10975,S10975,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10975,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)] [House] [Page S10975] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2008 No. 188" CREC-2008-12-16-pt1-PgS10975-2,2008-12-16,110,2,,,Senate,SENATE,SENATE,CALLTOORDER,S10975,S10975,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10975,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10975] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Senate Tuesday, December 16, 2008 (Legislative day of Wednesday, December 10, 2008) The Senate met at 11 and 19 seconds a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the Honorable John D. Rockefeller, a Senator from the State of West Virginia. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-16-pt1-PgS10975-3,2008-12-16,110,2,,,APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10975,S10975,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10975,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10975] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd). The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter: U.S. Senate, President pro tempore, Washington, DC, December 16, 2008. To the Senate: Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable John D. Rockefeller, a Senator from the State of West Virginia, to perform the duties of the Chair. Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore. Mr. ROCKEFELLER thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-16-pt1-PgS10975-4,2008-12-16,110,2,,,"RECESS UNTIL FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2008, AT 10 A.M.",SENATE,SENATE,SRECESS,S10975,S10975,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10975,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10975] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] RECESS UNTIL FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2008, AT 10 A.M. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until 10 a.m. on Friday, December 19, 2008. Thereupon, the Senate, at 11 and 50 seconds a.m., recessed until Friday, December 19, 2008, at 10 a.m." CREC-2008-12-16-pt1-PgS10975,2008-12-16,110,2,,,House of Representatives,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10975,S10975,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10975,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10975] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [[Page S10975]] House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 11 a.m. _________________________________" CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgD1323-2,2008-12-12,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate Committee Meetings,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCMEETINGS,D1323,D1323,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1323,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1323] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings (Committees not listed did not meet) No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgD1323-3,2008-12-12,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House of Representatives,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCHAMBER,D1323,D1323,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HCONRES"", ""number"": ""440""}]",154 Cong. Rec. D1323,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1323] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] House of Representatives Chamber Action The House was not in session today. The House is scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. on Saturday, January 3, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 440." CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgD1323-4,2008-12-12,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House Committee Meetings,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCMEETINGS,D1323,D1323,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1323,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1323] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings No committee meetings were held." CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgD1323-5,2008-12-12,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Next Meeting of the SENATE + Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES + Other End Matter,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDENDMATTER,D1323,D1324,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1323,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Pages D1323-D1324] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (USPS 087�09390). The Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, D.C. The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported by the Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directions of the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting very infrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed one time. Public access to the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user. The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from the beginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available through GPO Access at www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess. Customers can also access this information with WAIS client software, via telnet at swais.access.gpo.gov, or dial-in using communications software and a modem at 202�09512�091661. Questions or comments regarding this database or GPO Access can be directed to the GPO Access User Support Team at: E-Mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov; Phone 1�09888�09293�096498 (toll-free), 202�09512�091530 (D.C. area); Fax: 202�09512�091262. The Team's hours of availability are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, except Federal holidays. The Congressional Record paper and 24x microfiche edition will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $252.00 for six months, $503.00 per year, or purchased as follows: less than 200 pages, $10.50; between 200 and 400 pages, $21.00; greater than 400 pages, $31.50, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $146.00 per year, or purchased for $3.00 per issue payable in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. To place an order for any of these products, visit the U.S. Government Online Bookstore at: bookstore.gpo.gov. Mail orders to: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250�097954, or phone orders to 866�09512�091800 (toll free), 202�09512�091800 (D.C. area), or fax to 202�09512�092104. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, or GPO Deposit Account. Following each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents in individual parts or by sets. With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Record, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, Along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received. [[Page D1324]] _______________________________________________________________________ Next Meeting of the SENATE 11 a.m., Tuesday, December 16 Senate Chamber Program for Tuesday: Senate will meet in a pro forma session. Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11 a.m., Saturday, January 3, 2009 House Chamber Program for Saturday: To be anounced." CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgD1323,2008-12-12,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCHAMBER,D1323,D1323,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1323,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1323] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Friday, December 12, 2008 [[Page D1323]] Daily Digest Senate Chamber Action Senate met at 10:00:23 a.m. in pro forma session, and recessed at 10:00:54 a.m. until 11 a.m., on Tuesday, December 16, 2008." CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgH-FrontMatter,2008-12-12,110,2,,,House of Representatives,HOUSE,HOUSE,FRONTMATTER,S10959,S10959,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10959,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [House] [Page S10959] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2008 No. 187" CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgS10959-2,2008-12-12,110,2,,,Senate,SENATE,SENATE,CALLTOORDER,S10959,S10959,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10959,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10959] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Senate Friday, December 12, 2008 (Legislative day of Wednesday, December 10, 2008) The Senate met at 10 and 23 seconds a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the Honorable Carl Levin, a Senator from the State of Michigan. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgS10959-3,2008-12-12,110,2,,,APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10959,S10959,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10959,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10959] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd). The legislative clerk read the following letter: U.S. Senate, President pro tempore, Washington, DC, December 12, 2008. To the Senate: Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable Carl Levin, a Senator from the State of Michigan, to perform the duties of the Chair. Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore. Mr. LEVIN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgS10959-4,2008-12-12,110,2,,,TRIBUTES TO SENATORS,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10959,S10970,"[{""name"": ""Mitch McConnell"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Michael B. Enzi"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Olympia J. Snowe"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Jeff Sessions"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Kay Bailey Hutchison"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Saxby Chambliss"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Susan M. Collins"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10959,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10959-S10970] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] TRIBUTES TO SENATORS Elizabeth Dole Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one of the great privileges of my career has been the time I have spent working alongside Senator Bob Dole and his wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole. I feel a special kinship to the Doles. Not only are they both dear friends to Elaine and me, but in my position as Republican Leader I often think back on Bob's superb stewardship of the office. Bob Dole was in many ways a model and a mentor to me. I was humbled and honored to assume a role that he filled for so long with such dignity and skill. And today I am honored to submit for the Record a letter of tribute from my old friend to his remarkable wife at the conclusion of her Senate career. Elizabeth Dole has graced this chamber in the same way that she has graced every other institution of which she has been a part in a long and distinguished career of public service. We will miss Senator Dole's kindness, her warmth, and her unyielding belief in the greatness of her country. Senator Dole is one of the great public servants of our day. It is my great pleasure to ask that this letter from one dear friend to another be printed in the Record. The letter follows. December 12, 2008. Dear Mitch: I wish I could be a Senator again just long enough to speak of Senator Elizabeth Dole's accomplishments which have spanned a period of nearly a half century. Elizabeth correctly chose to focus her farewell remarks on those who helped and counseled her along the way. She spoke about those who were most important in her life's journey such as her mother, her father, her teachers, co-workers, and her dear brother, John, who passed away on April 8, 2008. John was her mentor, her confidant, and a proud naval officer in World War II. Elizabeth's speech was all about others rather than herself, which, in itself, says a lot about Elizabeth as a caring human being. So in an indirect way, I want to share her many areas of service with all those thinking about their future and the path they will follow. Believe me when I say they will not find a better example than the Senator Dole from North Carolina. Senator Dole, in many respects, was a pioneer for American women, as many of her early opportunities came before women were in the forefront of public or private sectors of meaningful service activity. Elizabeth has never stopped looking for ways to make a difference. It would be impossible to determine the number of good people in North Carolina and across America that Elizabeth's efforts have had an impact upon, myself included. She assisted me three times in campaigning full-time for the presidency, taking a one year leave of absence from the Red Cross, but more importantly were the countless times she assisted me personally because of my disabilities. Let me recount some of the highlights of Senator Dole's career so that those who may be looking for a role model may fully understand the differences she has made for others, irregardless of party, race, religion or status. Public Service Career and Selected Accomplishments of Elizabeth Dole Early 1960's: Summer jobs during graduate school Office of Senator B. Everett Jordan (D-NC) United Nations Guide United Nations Intern Program 1966-1967: Assistant at the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare After completing her Master of Arts in Teaching and her graduation from Harvard Law School, Elizabeth Hanford was hired by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Her assignments there included planning the first- ever United States government sponsored conference on education of the deaf. This conference, which spawned a career-long dedication to the rights of the disabled, was held in Colorado Springs in [[Page S10960]] 1967. During this time, she took cases for indigents, those who could not afford an attorney. 1967-1968: Deputy Assistant for Legislative Affairs, White House Office of Consumer Affairs In April 1968, Elizabeth Hanford joined the Lyndon Johnson Administration at the White House Office of Consumer Affairs, working for Betty Furness. As Deputy Assistant for Legislative Affairs, she traveled frequently to Capitol Hill to advocate for policies protecting American consumers. 1969-1973: Deputy Director, President's Committee on Consumer Interests Upon taking office in January 1969, President Richard Nixon renamed the White House Office of Consumer Affairs the ``President's Committee on Consumer Interests.'' Virginia Knauer was appointed Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs and promoted Elizabeth Hanford to serve as her deputy. Hanford would serve with Knauer for five years as a tireless advocate for American consumers, developing consumer education curriculum for America's schools, reaching voluntary agreements with industry to undertake nutritional labeling and unit pricing, and helping to create the Consumer Information Center in Pueblo, Colorado. They were guided by the philosophy that for consumers to make wise decisions, they must have access to all relevant information. 1973-1979: Commissioner, United States Federal Trade Commission In 1973, Elizabeth Hanford was nominated by President Richard Nixon and confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as a member of the United States Federal Trade Commission. Established in 1915, the Federal Trade Commission's duties include promoting fair competition through the enforcement of antitrust laws, preventing the dissemination of false and deceptive advertising of goods, and investigating unfair business practices. Seeing the commission as an opportunity to bring about lower prices for consumers, to ensure better quality goods and services, and to expand the choices available in a free, competitive marketplace, Commissioner Hanford's (married Senator Bob Dole in 1975) priorities included consumer protections for women and the elderly. She held seminars for women in business, and as the FTC enforced the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, worked with Women in Radio and TV on ads explaining how women, for the first time, could get credit in their own name. Dole's work also included a comprehensive investigation of nursing homes and a number of antitrust and consumer protection investigations and enforcement actions. 1981-1983: Assistant to the President for Public Liaison In January 1981, President Ronald Reagan named Dole Assistant to the President, to head the White House Office of Public Liaison. In that position, Dole played a key role in advancing the Reagan agenda to a wide number of constituent groups (for example, women, business, labor, religious community, Hispanics and other ethics organizations) and to the American people. Dole was instrumental in the passage of the Prompt Pay Act of 1982, which required the government to pay vendors on time or pay an interest penalty. Dole also headed the White House Coordinating Council on Women, charged with reviewing government regulations to eliminate vestiges of discrimination, thereby increasing opportunities for women in government and in the country at large. The Council advocated legislation that would make it easier for women to collect court ordered child support payments, and to equalize Social Security benefits for widows and widowers. 1983-1987: Secretary, United States Secretary of Transportation In 1983, President Reagan nominated Dole to serve as Secretary of Transportation--the first women in history to lead that cabinet department. The United States Senate unanimously confirmed her. Dole's many accomplishments as Secretary of Transportation included: Presiding over what, up to date, were the safest years in the history of American transportation--highways, railways, and airlines. Initiating widespread efforts to eliminate drunk driving, particularly among the nation's youth. These efforts led to the passage of legislation raising the drinking age to 21 to eliminate ``blood borders'' between states with differing age requirements. Instituting random drug testing of safety and security- related employees--the first civilian department to do so. Crafting a rule that resolved a twenty year controversy over automatic crash protection in cars. This rule totally changed the climate for auto safety in America, leading to the adoption of mandatory safety belt use laws in 49 American states and providing incentives for auto manufacturers to develop, test, and offer air bags in automobiles. Mandating high-mounted brake lights on cars. These ``Dole lights'' cost less than $20 per vehicle, and have been estimated to eliminate 900,000 crashes annually. Implementing rules that improved safety in aircraft cabins by making aircraft seats less flammable, improving aircraft cabin evacuation with low-level lights, and reducing the danger of fire in aircraft lavatories. Leading successful effort to pass legislation authorizing the transfer of two federally owned airports, Washington National and Dulles, to a regional authority, accomplishing a de-federalization move that had been proposed eight times since 1948 and had never been voted out of committee in either the House or the Senate. The new Reagan National Airport and doubling the size of Dulles International were thereby accomplished through revenue bonds, not federal taxpayer dollars. Leading effort for the reopening and redevelopment of Washington D.C.'s Union Station, which had been closed for over five years. Historic Union Station re-opened in 1988, and now houses dozens of shops, restaurants, and theaters, while also serving as a major transportation center. Selling government's freight railroad, Conrail, in the largest public offering of its kind to that date. Overseeing a 10% increase in the number of women in the Department of Transportation workforce, which had only 19% women in its 100,000 workforce when Elizabeth became Secretary. 10-point initiative including rotational assignments and career development programs to assist talented women in moving up the ladder. First woman to serve as departmental head of a branch of the armed forces, U.S. Coast Guard. 1989-1990: Secretary, United States Department of Labor In January 1981, President George H.W. Bush nominated and the Senate unanimously confirmed Dole to serve as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor--the first woman in history to serve in the cabinet of two presidents. Dole's priorities and accomplishments as Secretary of Labor included the following: Improving the skills of individuals entering the American workforce. This focus included the appointment of a blue- ribbon commission charged with developing national competency guidelines that reflected work readiness and which could be used by the schools for curriculum development; sponsorship of a first-ever national conference on the ``school-to-work'' population; expansion of work-based training along the principles of apprenticeship; and ensuring that the Job Training Partnership Act provided basic skills, literacy, and remedial education along with job training. Instigating a ``glass ceiling initiative,'' which revealed the barriers preventing women and minorities from reaching the top levels of corporate America. Traveling twice to Poland to assist that country in its transition from communism to democracy. DOL programs included the creation of construction training centers in Warsaw and Gdansk. Crafting a strategy that led to the successful conclusion of a bitter eleven month United Mine Workers strike against the Pittston Coal Company. Elizabeth visited the strike scene and traveled through a coal mine. Special focus on improving lives of youth at risk in our society. 1991-1999; President, American Red Cross (The first woman president since Clara Barton, who founded the Red Cross in 1881; Out of respect for the thousands of volunteers, she served her first year without pay.) During her eight years at the helm of the American Red Cross, Dole led a $287 million project that totally modernized and transformed the Red Cross blood operations begun in World War II. ``Blood Transformation'' integrated 28 different computer systems into a single centralized network; replaced 53 non-standardized testing facilities with 8 state- of-the-art labs to test for infectious diseases; standardized manufacturing processes across each of its 38 blood regions; and established a Quality Assurance Program that became a model for the blood banking industry. Dole also led a massive four-year revitalization of Red Cross disaster relief services, establishing a National Disaster Operations Center open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to monitor ongoing disasters and impending threats; increasing to twenty-one thousand the number of those trained to handle national catastrophic disasters; and warehousing equipment in areas likely to get hardest hit. Dole restructured and strengthened Armed Forces Emergency Services, which provided an average of 4,000 emergency communications a day and other assistance to members of the Armed forces and their families. Her 3-year modernization of AFES included the establishment of two centralized Case Management Centers utilizing the latest technology to replace 145 stations on military installations. For the first time in its history, Red Cross chapters had to defend their charters, meeting high standards. Henceforth, they were required to meet those high standards every five years in order to keep their charters. 10-point initiative to help qualified women and minorities move up the ladder, such as apprentices assigned to all senior managers. Throughout her tenure, Dole ensured that 91 cents of every dollar donated to the American Red Cross was spent on programs and services. Dole led humanitarian visits to disaster sites and war zones around the world, e.g. Kuwait; Somalia; Goma, Congo. 2003-2009; United States Senator from the State of North Carolina In November 2002, Dole was elected by the voters of North Carolina to serve in the [[Page S10961]] United States Senate. Upon taking office in January 2003, Dole became the first woman in history to represent North Carolina in the Senate. In her six years in the Senate, Dole's accomplishments included: Leading a successful effort to protect North Carolina's military bases from closure and adding additional jobs, for example 9000 at Fort Bragg. Working to ensure a fair process that resulted in the basing of two F/A-18E/F Squadrons at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, which brings more than 1,200 jobs and an annual infusion of $40 million to the local economy. Securing nearly $4 billion in funding for rural North Carolina and preventing thousands of farm families from bankruptcy by achieving a tobacco quota buyout with no tax implications. Leading a bipartisan effort to extend family and medical leave coverage to military families. Successfully working for a law that protects service members and their families from predatory lenders. Successfully advocating since 2003 for a strong world class regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Securing $57 million for hiring customs agents focused solely on keeping illegal textiles out of the country. Securing $350 million in federal funding for North Carolina transportation infrastructure projects. Authoring legislation that provided increased grant funding to community colleges through the Higher Education Act. Working with federal officials and sheriffs across North Carolina's 100 counties to deliver the first in the nation statewide partnership to apprehend, identify and remove undocumented aliens who commit crimes. Helping to lead the effort to raise fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks in the 2007 energy bill to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020, thereby saving 800,000 barrels of oil per day in 2020 and nearly one million barrels per day by 2021. Becoming a national leader in the fight against hunger, through the adoption of a farm bill that expanded funding for federal anti-hunger programs, and helping to secure more than $400 million for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. Convincing the Office of National Drug Control Policy to designate five counties in North Carolina as part of its High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. Helping to lead the effort to reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief at $48 billion, and $9 billion for prevention of malaria and tuberculosis, thereby preventing 12 million new HIV infections, treating 3 million people living with HIV/AIDS, and supporting care for 12 million people living with HIV/AIDS. Handling 40,000 cases for North Carolina constituents who needed assistance with a federal agency. These are just the highlights and while she did not always reach her goals, most of her life has been filled with successes because of her hard work, her faith, integrity and determination. Mitch, I'm proud of her record, as you are of Elaine's remarkable achievements, which included their work together at the Department of Transportation. I believe those who read this will be inspired to set higher goals for themselves and will accomplish a great deal more in their lifetimes. God Bless America, Bob. Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the final gavel will soon bring to a close the 110th Session of Congress. When it does, we will all return home to spend time with our friends and families to celebrate the holidays. We will also have a chance to meet with our constituents as we prepare for the challenges the New Year, a new administration and a new session of Congress will bring. Before all of that occurs, we will say goodbye to several of our colleagues who will be returning home at the end of the year. We will miss them and the important presence they have been in our lives and our work over the past few years. One Senator I know we will all miss is Elizabeth Dole, the Senator from North Carolina. It's that time of year when we will be watching our traditional holiday film favorites and one that certainly brings Elizabeth Dole to mind is It's A Wonderful Life. I don't think anyone has had a more exciting or interesting career than Elizabeth and certainly no one has a more impressive or detailed resume than she does. Elizabeth has been a trailblazer throughout her life as she set out on a path to show others what was possible. Thanks to her, women of all ages across the country have a role model and a champion to look up to who has raised their sights as to what is possible for them to achieve in their lives. Looking back, Elizabeth has been on the front lines of our national political scene for many years. She has broken quite a few glass ceilings, too, as she has taken a position of leadership and worked in the administrations of five Presidents. In the recent past she was often mentioned as someone who would make a good Presidential candidate herself. Elizabeth really has lived a wonderful life. After her graduation from Harvard Law School she was asked to serve as a consumer affairs aide to President Lyndon Johnson. She then served under President Nixon, President Carter, President Ford and President Reagan, who asked her to join his administration. Elizabeth set another precedent when she was appointed to serve as the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. She was the first woman ever to serve in that post. It was another opportunity for her to make a difference and she got right to work. She increased automobile safety requirements, worked to raise the drinking age to 21, imposed tougher security measures at our airports, and helped to make our cars safer. All of these changes not only made our lives better, but they also helped to save countless lives over the years. President George Herbert Bush then asked her to serve as his Secretary of Labor, a post that Elizabeth would use to help identify and erase the barriers that were preventing women and minorities from moving up the corporate ladder. She saw her service as an important opportunity to change things and make life better for others, and once again, she succeeded. That would have been enough for most people, the end of a remarkable career, a wonderful life in itself, but Elizabeth was just getting started. When she left public life and entered the private sector, she then took up the reins as the President of the American Red Cross. She was the first woman to hold the post since Clara Barton, the organization's founder held it in 1881. It was a difficult job and a tremendous challenge, but she was more than up to the task. Elizabeth took over a Red Cross in real financial trouble, but when she got through organizing and overhauling things, a large deficit turned into enough cash on hand to provide the kind of assistance the Red Cross is known for in the event of any local or national emergency. Elizabeth is probably one of Duke University's best known graduates. Her North Carolina roots then brought her back home to make a run for the Senate. As she campaigned, the people listened to her and they liked what they heard. They decided that sending her to Washington to represent them would be a good idea. The record shows they were right. In the Senate, Elizabeth has been at the forefront of efforts to ensure that our workers will have the training they will need to change careers and move on to better jobs in the current global economy. She had the insight to propose legislation to provide grants to small business owners so they could get the training they would need to be more competitive in the markets of today. On the Banking Committee, Elizabeth has been at the center of the action on the Nation's financial problems. She has played an important role in the effort to enact tougher regulations to stop predatory lending and place tighter controls on government sponsored mortgages. Clearly, Elizabeth has compiled a long list of achievements and accomplishments in her life that would make anyone proud. She has received a number of awards and recognitions for her tremendous efforts as a national political figure. But, what is probably most important to her, is the fact that she has blazed a trail for others to follow and by so doing she has inspired a new generation of women of all ages to set a higher standard for themselves and what they think is possible for them to achieve. In the end, that may be her greatest accomplishment of them all. This is only a small part of Elizabeth's story and there are many more items on her record that are equally impressive. Together with her husband, Bob Dole, she has been part of a remarkable team and they have had a profound influence on the Senate and the Nation on every level. Diana and I will miss seeing Elizabeth here in the Senate, but I have a hunch she will be close by to keep an eye on us and to keep in touch. She has had a remarkable career and a wonderful life and we were very proud to be a [[Page S10962]] part of it. We enjoy her company, her unique style, and most of all, we enjoy her friendship. We don't know what her next adventure in her life will be, but we will be watching with great interest as this exciting chapter comes to a close and she begins to write the next. Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my longtime good friend and colleague who, as one of 16 women Senators in the 110th Congress, has been a tremendous and cherished compatriot and an outstanding legislator, leader, and public servant. This Chamber was truly fortunate and blessed to have someone of Elizabeth's background, understanding, and stature. A veteran of five administrations, Senator Dole, upon her arrival in the U.S. Senate in 2002, brought with her an impressive depth and breadth of experience even by Senate standards, and a grace befitting her southern heritage combined with a tireless commitment to uncompromising substance. Having acquired both a masters and law degree from Harvard University, Senator Dole put the rigors of academia to good use in the pursuit of public service. She worked as a consumer affairs aide to both President Johnson and President Nixon and as a member of the Federal Trade Commission under President Ford and President Carter. And as a Member of Congress, I well recall Elizabeth in her role as assistant for public liaison in the Reagan Administration--where she served while I was in the U.S. House of Representatives. And she broke new ground as the first woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of Transportation--a post she held under President Reagan, and then as Secretary of Labor under President George H.W. Bush. After ending her stellar executive branch tenure, Senator Dole assumed the helm of the American Red Cross in 1991. And who could forget her valiant run in 1999 for the White House. As ranking member on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I had the privilege of not only serving with Senator Dole, but also collaborating with her on issues affecting women in small business. Together, we saw an untapped capacity that women business-owners clearly possess to contribute to this economy--and we have worked tirelessly to remove unacceptable and regrettable impediments to receiving assistance and contracting opportunities from the Federal Government. In fact, we introduced legislation which would amend the Small Business Act to allow women-owned small businesses to have a meaningful contracting program--one that would apply to a broad array of business industries across this Nation; and prevent the SBA from requiring agencies to admit to past discrimination in order to participate in the women's Federal contracting program. The fact is, our government is supposed to work for the people, not against them. Senator Dole understood that basic tenet firsthand, as it impacted women business- owners, and was instrumental in championing our opposition to an egregious SBA rule. I say to Elizabeth, all of us in the Senate are going to miss her presence and contributions to this venerable chamber--but as she is well aware, there are 15 of us who are losing more than a friend and a colleague . . . but also a compatriot . . . and, yes, a kind of sister- in-arms. We all have the sense of a bond born of serving together in this institution as a minority of our own. I recall having our dinners first at the Sewall-Belmont House, then the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, and the last one we came full circle by dining in the U.S. Capitol. Elizabeth, will certainly be missed. Lastly, on a very personal note, I don't think many of us will get completely used to a U.S. Senate without a Dole--and what an incalculable personal and combined service both Elizabeth Dole and our esteemed and beloved former majority leader, Bob Dole, have rendered to our country. So on this occasion, as we celebrate the exceptional contributions of Elizabeth Dole in the Senate and throughout her life, our warmest regards go out to her and leader Dole, and we wish them both nothing but the best for the future. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record an article about Senator Elizabeth Dole, who will be departing the Senate this year. She has been my seatmate, and, I must say, she is my favorite in the entire Senate. A brilliant thinker, an incredibly hard worker, gracious, a person of sincere faith who lives it every day, she has lifted the Senate to a higher level throughout her tenure and through many difficult times. Her record of service, as Paul Weyrich notes, is truly extraordinary. Throughout her long and distinguished career, her commitment to America has never been questioned. Her decency, experience, and leadership qualities have blessed us all. She grew up in small town North Carolina and the values instilled in her by family, church, and school were never lost. I wish her every success in her future endeavors and am confident that in this next stage of her life she will continue to contribute to the betterment of our nation. The article follows. [Townhall.com. Dec. 11, 2008] A Tribute to Senator Elizabeth H. Dole (By Paul Weyrich) A good lady is about to leave Washington, D.C. after decades of public service. I refer to Senator Elizabeth Hanford Dole (R-NC), who was defeated in her bid for re- election in the 2008 election. Dole married Senator Robert J. ``Bob'' Dole in 1975. President Gerald R. Ford named him his running mate after dumping the unpopular Vice President, Nelson A. Rockefeller. Dole was Majority Leader of the Senate from 1985 to 1987, when Democrats regained control of the Senate and he became Minority Leader. Dole remained the leader of the Senate Republicans until he resigned his post to be the GOP Presidential nominee in 1996. All this time Elizabeth Dole was at his side. But she became an important figure in her own right. When Ronald W. Reagan was elected President in 1980 Dole became Reagan's liaison to conservatives, veterans and others. Soon Reagan named her Secretary of Transportation. By all accounts she did an admirable job. In the Administration of George H.W. Bush, Dole became Secretary of Labor. She and Bob Dole became a power couple in D.C. When Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) retired after 40 years in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole ran for his seat. He campaigned for her. She suggested she would vote like Helms and indeed she did. However, some North Carolinians suggested that her constituent services left much to be desired. And by all accounts she ran an inadequate re-election campaign. I watched with sadness as she questioned automobile manufacturers in the lame duck session of Congress. Soon she will have to pack up her office and head home. Her husband is now all but retired. This once-powerful couple is out of power. Dole is gracious about her loss. One would hardly know she had been defeated. Yet she leaves Washington having accomplished much in her service in the White House, the Transportation and Labor Departments and the United States Senate. This is one fine lady, the likes of whom we probably will not see in this town for many years. Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, even before she came to the U.S. Senate, Elizabeth Dole was already a trailblazer and one of the most accomplished women in American history. At a time when women who attended prestigious colleges and universities were rare, Senator Dole received an undergraduate degree from Duke University, as well as two degrees from Harvard University: a master's degree in education and government, and a law degree. She was one of only 24 women in her Harvard Law School class of 550. She then began a public service career that paved the way for millions of women who have admired and followed her. After serving as the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Consumer Affairs in the Nixon administration, Elizabeth Dole was appointed as a member of the Federal Trade Commission. From 1981-83, she served in the Reagan administration as assistant to the President for Public Liaison. From 1983-87, she served as Secretary of Transportation, the first woman to hold that position. She joined the administration of President George H.W. Bush as Secretary of Labor from 1989-90. From 1991-98, Elizabeth Dole was the President of the American Red Cross, the world's largest humanitarian organization. Finally, in 2002, she won election to the U.S. Senate from North Carolina. As the senior Senator from the Tar Heel State, Elizabeth Dole has fought for lower taxes, choice in Social Security, and comprehensive energy reform. Senator Dole, and her wonderful husband, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, have made a tremendous impact on American history. [[Page S10963]] I will miss working with Senator Elizabeth Dole, and I wish her all the best. Gordon Smith Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have come to the end of another legislative session and we are all preparing to return home to celebrate the holidays with our friends and families back home. As we close the books on the 110th Session of Congress, it is good to have this opportunity take a moment to say goodbye to our colleagues who will not be with us when the gavel opens the next session of Congress. We will miss them all. One Senator we will particularly miss when the next session of Congress begins is Gordon Smith. Gordon is a remarkable representative of his home State and he has been an important voice for the people of Oregon during his 12 years of service in the Senate. I have enjoyed coming to know Gordon and having a chance to work with him on several issues of concern to the people of our States. During his service, he has compiled a remarkable record of success that has earned him a reputation for his ability to get things done in both the private and public sector. Gordon and I have something in common--a love of numbers and the intricacies of the law and how they impact the small businesses of our Nation. We are both aware of the importance of the small business community and the jobs they provide to the people of this Nation. Without them our local, State and national economies would be in even worse shape than they are right now. With them, there is great hope and confidence that we will be able to find a solution to the economic problems facing our country. Gordon knows something about running a small business from the days he spent trying to revive the frozen vegetable processing company that had been in his family's hands. Because of the strength of his will, his determination to succeed, and his commitment to excellence, he was able to produce amazing results. He took what had been an unprofitable business and turned it into one of the largest frozen food companies in the United States. His incredible ride to the top earned him a place in the Frozen Food Industry Hall of Fame. It also earned him a spot on the Senate Finance Committee, where he has worked tirelessly to protect the small businesses of our Nation. His business sense and the practical experience he had of meeting a payroll and planning a budget helped him to master all of the details of our tax policy. He has an uncanny sense and a profound understanding of what works and what doesn't--and why. Fortunately, he has been at the right place at the right time and has known what to do to fix things and right our country's economic ship. Gordon's commitment to our families has shown itself in many ways, most notably, by his work to tackle the problem of uninsured children. He offered an amendment that passed the Senate that provided for an increase in Federal cigarette taxes to fund a program to cover some 6 million uninsured children who were eligible for but were not enrolled in State health insurance programs or Medicaid. He fought for our children because Gordon understands full well that they are our most important resource. If we don't provide them with affordable health care, a good education, and a supportive home environment that will make it possible for them to be successful in school and later in life, then nothing we do, no matter how well we do it will matter much in the long run. Gordon knew it would not be easy to pass that amendment, but he was ready for a fight. He made it clear that if anything was worth fighting for, that was it. It really was no wonder, therefore, when he won a clear and decisive victory--not for himself, but for those 6 million children who now have a chance to live a happier and healthier life, thanks to Gordon Smith. It's another proud chapter in his legislative career--and it's part of a legacy of service to the people of Oregon that will never be forgotten. As I have come to know Gordon, I have thought that he is a little like me because we both love to confound those in both parties who are surprised to see us working so well with members on both sides of the aisle. We have both worked with Ted Kennedy and thanks to his willingness to help us pursue a common agenda, we have both been able to make progress on the issues that concern us and the people back home. In the months to come, I believe we will most remember Gordon for the way he faced the personal tragedy of losing a son. I can only imagine the pain that comes with such a loss. Gordon handled that time in his life with great strength and shared his experience with us, not to draw attention to himself, but because he knew that ``his having been there'' would enable him to reach out to help those who might be facing a similar struggle in the lives of their own families. As he began to heal from that painful wound, he took that personal tragedy and gave it added meaning by working to pass a suicide prevention bill that now bears his son's name. It was another battle he fought because it was the right thing to do. He took up the cause because he believed in it with all his heart. As a result, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act will forever serve as a loving testament of a father to the life of his son. It will encourage us all to reach out to those facing similar problems so they can receive the help and support they need to go on with their lives. I have always known Gordon to be a man of great spiritual strength, a former Mormon bishop who has deep personal and moral convictions. He has a strong sense of right and wrong and his inner compass has helped to guide him in the direction that he felt was best for his State and the Nation. He is an individual blessed with a strong and determined spirit who has a special place in his heart and his life for his God and his country. Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Senator Gordon Smith, with whom I have had the privilege of working throughout his 12 years of service in the U.S. Senate. Gordon has been a great friend to me as he has to so many of us--but most importantly he has been a tremendous asset to the Senate, the Nation, and certainly the great State of Oregon. Since his election to the U.S. Senate in 1996, the people of Oregon have benefited immeasurably from Senator Smith's leadership. Throughout his service on numerous committees, including the Commerce and Finance Committees where we have served together, Senator Smith has been a credit to this body and has left a positive and lasting mark-- exemplified by his tireless work on the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and the leadership he took in defending the Medicaid program from misguided budget cuts. Above all else, Senator Smith always perceived his responsibility as representing his country before his party. There is no doubt that as we move forward into next Congress, I, for one, will miss his independent perspective. Since 1992, when he won election to the Oregon State Senate, Senator Smith has devoted his life to public service--and his integrity and dedication to the finest ideals of service make him a role model for all Americans. Few who have held the position of U.S. Senator have been able to combine his candor, civility, aptitude, and absolute dedication to the public good that have allowed him to be such an effective, bipartisan Member of the Senate. What many may not understand is the camaraderie that we build with our fellow Members of the Senate. We spend aggregate months each year separated from our homes, families, and friends and in doing so, each of us becomes a part of an extended family. So it was the most acute and profound sadness that we all felt in our hearts upon the loss in 2003 of Gordon's son, Garrett Lee. And having read Senator Smith's book, Remembering Garrett, One Family's Battle with a Child's Depression, I still find it almost unimaginable the grace and courage he displayed in continuing his work during the most difficult of times after Garrett's tragic passing. As a testament to his humble nature, Senator Smith turned from his own loss to help others. And he forged a remarkable and indelible legacy for his son with the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act--legislation to which Senator Smith has dedicated his life. This act, which the President signed into law on [[Page S10964]] October 21, 2004, authorized $82 million for suicide-prevention and awareness programs, and represented just the first step Senator Smith has taken to help prevent other families from having to experience what his has endured. Ou Government is supposed to work for the people, and few individuals during my tenure in public service have exemplified this truism more so than Senator Smith. In the Senate, Gordon never allowed a party label to determine who he works with on critical legislation affecting our Nation. He had the skill to work across the aisle with intelligence and grace, and most of all, his highest priority was his constituents in Oregon. Whether he was fighting for transit funding in urban Portland or assistance in coastal fishing communities and rural timber towns, Gordon always knew where his roots were, and he was invariably an eloquent champion for those issues that truly mattered for the people of Oregon. Gordon, we thank you, we will miss you, and please know that you have left a positive and indelible mark on the Senate. All the best to you, Sharon, and your entire family for the future. Mrs. HUTCHISON. Gordon Smith has served the people of Oregon extremely well. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, he served as director of the family-owned Smith frozen foods company in Weston, Oregon, where he created jobs and spurred economic growth. Gordon Smith entered politics with his election to the Oregon State Senate in 1992, and he became president of that body in 1995. Since winning election to the U.S. Senate in 1996, Senator Smith has worked with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle on critical issues. Senator Smith chaired the Special Committee on Aging, and he also served on the following Senate committees: Commerce, Science and Transportation, Energy and Natural Resources, Finance, and Indian Affairs. Senator Smith has also courageously used family tragedy as a way to educate and encourage Americans on a very important subject: suicide prevention for young men and women. In 2004, I was so proud when President Bush signed the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, authorizing $82 million for suicide-prevention and awareness programs at colleges. Senator Smith also distinguished himself by championing rural Oregonians, including the many farmers and ranchers throughout the mountains and lake areas of his beautiful State. I thank Gordon Smith for his dedication and service, and I wish him well. Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I too wish speak of my good friend, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. Senator Smith came to the Senate for all the right reasons, most importantly to represent the people who elected him and he has done an outstanding job of doing just that. Gordon never shied away from the controversial issues and often went against the majority position of his own party. Every time he did so he articulated in a very professional way his reason why he was voting and the way he did. This always takes courage and conviction, and Gordon Smith possesses both. I will always admire Gordon's faith, which allowed him to survive personal tragedy as well as deal with the day-to-day decisions of the Senate. Senator Gordon Smith is one of those Members who makes serving in the Senate a pleasure. I will miss his counsel, his advice, and his friendship. God speed to he, Sharon, and their family. john sununu Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Senator John Sununu, an outstanding public servant and fellow New Englander whose common-sense approach to governance and dedication to problem-solving have well-served both his constituents of the Granite State of New Hampshire as well as his country. It is impossible not to like and respect someone of Senator Sununu's tremendous affability and enormous capability. Personable and analytical, John brought to the U.S. Senate what he exhibited during his accomplished tenure in the U.S. House--a welcomed engineer's perspective. So, we are losing more than a colleague of undeniable skill and integrity--we are going to miss his vital and refreshing contribution to this Chamber's national conversation. And so, let me just say, it's been my good fortune to serve with John on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation-- specifically, the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard as ranking member, and the Senate Committee on Finance. Particularly, as a member of the Ocean's Subcommittee, and former chair of the Subcommittee on the National Ocean Policy Study, Senator Sununu advocated for New England's fishermen and fishing communities through several difficult years. Moreover, as Maine's groundfishery continued to suffer under ever more stringent catch limits, and our lobster industry faced increasingly strict regulations, John's help was instrumental in keeping these issues at the fore and protecting one of our region's and our Nation's most historic professions. For his tireless leadership on these crucial issues, we are forever grateful. On two additional topics that are also profoundly critical not only to my State of Maine, but also to the entire New England region--the vitality of Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the protection of the pivotal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP, John and I have been vigilant, working hand-in glove to ensure the continued viability of these indispensable mainstays of our neighboring States. In fact, in the 110th Congress, we--as part of both the New Hampshire and Maine delegations--working with the Kittery-Portsmouth community, union leaders, and Captain Mazzone and his world-class team--fought vigorously and successfully to secure $20.7 million in full funding for the construction of the Waterfront Support Facility at drydock #3--and $9.9 million for the first phase of a new Consolidated Global Submarine Component Facility. As a much-admired, ``best in Navy performance'' shipyard that delivers the best work consistently on time and under budget, Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard--the oldest naval shipyard in the Nation--unquestionably deserved no less. When it comes to the life or death matter of LIHEAP, since coming to Congress in 1997, John has, time and again, battled on behalf of thousands of families in New Hampshire who require fuel assistance to stay warm in their homes during the winter months. Senator Sununu was a stalwart addition to the chorus of those championing LIHEAP from New England and other affected regions around the country. Although there are truly serious subjects of public policy that bind us as New Englanders, nothing brings us together more than our beloved Boston Red Sox. And I dare say, one of John's fondest memories over the last 6 years likely has nothing to do with the U.S. Senate and everything to do with being from New England and a Red Sox fan--as Boston won not one but two World Series Championships, shattering the much-ballyhooed curse for good. In the end, Mr. President, the true measure of a person is not making a living by what you get--but rather by what you give, and John Sununu, during his entire time in Congress, has given his State of New Hampshire remarkable public service worthy of its venerable heritage. By entering the family business of politics, John has indeed been a steward of the country's business, and we, and his State of New Hampshire, owe him a debt of great thanks. Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, soon the gavel will bring to a close the 110th Congress and we will say goodbye to several good friends who will be leaving the Senate and returning to their home States. We will miss them all. John Sununu will be heading home at the end of the current session and I know I will miss him when the next session of Congress is called to order on the Senate floor. I have enjoyed having an opportunity to come to know him during his service in the Senate and on the Senate Banking Committee. He has always impressed me with his knowledge of the intricacies of our Federal mortgage system. It is clear he has always had the tools and the talent to be an effective representative for the people of his State and he has always been a strong and effective voice for the people of New Hampshire. John learned about politics and public service at a young age as he [[Page S10965]] watched both of his parents pursue their careers in their chosen fields. John's mother was a school board member, which explains his aptitude for science and math. He soon turned his talent for numbers into a degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his interest in business into a degree from Harvard. As the old adage says so well, he comes from good stock and a great political family. His father served as the Governor of New Hampshire and later as President Bush's Chief of Staff. He learned a great deal from his father about politics and what mattered to the people of his home State as he traveled around New Hampshire with his dad. He then put those lessons into practice when he made his own run for office. John's initial run for the House led to three successful terms. He then launched a successful campaign for the Senate. As soon as he arrived, he made it clear he was going to follow his own path and he had his own way of doing things. He had spent years working with the people of his home State and he had a clear view of those issues that were of great concern to them. When he was asked, he had a ready explanation for the reason why he had such a unique perspective on things. It was all due, he would say, to his long New Hampshire roots. He knew that the people of New Hampshire are known for their independence and they have a long tradition of great respect for the rights and freedoms of this country. That, he would say, has drawn my focus and sparked my interest in these issues. John has been a welcome and spirited presence on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. His educational background has helped him to stay on top of the latest technological advances and developments and that has helped him in the effort to keep our regulations on the latest technologies up to date, current and effective. Yogi Berra used to say that you can observe a lot just by watching. I hope John will forgive me for quoting the words of a Yankee legend to a Red Sox fan, but as I have watched him in action, it is clear from his style that he has a bit of Wyoming in him. Never one to look for opportunities to speak to the press or make lengthy speeches to get noticed, John has always been focused on what he could do that would help to get things done. In my home State we like to say that you can get anything done if you don't care who gets the credit. John is like that. He has been working to get things done for New Hampshire and he has earned the credit he has received back home. One of the issues that has always drawn John's interest has been the environment, especially the quality of our air. It is a sensitive issue for him, and he has always shown himself up to the task of fighting for cleaner air for the folks back home. His long list of achievements on this and many other issues will be his legacy, a record of which he can be very proud. In the years to come, I will remember John for his unique sense of style, his determination to get things done for his state, and his willingness to stand up for those things he believed in with that remarkable intellect of his. He's not just a smart guy. There are a lot of very gifted individuals who knew what had to be done but could just never do it. John is a thoughtful man of action who has an in-depth understanding of the problems that face the Nation and a unique insight into what will work and what won't. Simply put, John knows how to make the right things happen. Now John and Kitty will be returning home to New Hampshire to begin some new and exciting chapter in their lives. I don't know what they will decide to do, but I do know that John will stay active and involved in the issues that concern him that carried him to Washington for these past 12 years to serve in the House and the Senate. He would be the first to tell you that it has been a pleasure and an honor to work for the people of New Hampshire, and I am certain we haven't heard the last from him. For my part, I appreciate all his help on the issues we worked on together, but most of all, I appreciate his friendship and his willingness to play such an important part in the history of New Hampshire and the United States. He can be very proud of the difference he has made. He has been a good and effective Senator and the people of New Hampshire will always be proud of him and that they had the good sense to send him to Washington. Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have really enjoyed working with John Sununu. John Sununu grew up in Salem, NH, and is one of eight children. He was first introduced to public service at a young age, when his mother served as chairman of the local school board. John attended public schools, graduated from Salem High School, and received bachelor's and master's degrees in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. John also earned a master's degree in business administration from the Harvard Graduate School of Business. John Sununu first ran for public office in 1996, winning election in New Hampshire's 1st District and serving three terms in the U.S. House. In 2002, John defeated both an incumbent Senator and an incumbent Governor to become the youngest member of the U.S. Senate. As a Senator, John distinguished himself as an innovative legislator, bringing his extensive background in science, engineering, and small business to his work in Washington. Senator Sununu has been a staunch advocate for low taxes, smarter regulation, and civil liberties. Senator Sununu is also a man of heart. I will never forget that in July 2005, to show solidarity with Senator Specter, who had lost his hair due to chemotherapy, Senator Sununu shaved his head. Since he is still a young man at the age of 44, I suspect that we will be hearing a lot more from John Sununu in the years to come. I wish him well in his future endeavors. Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Maine and New Hampshire have much in common. When John Sununu came to the Senate six years ago, I immediately saw in him those traits shared by the people of our two States: a strong work ethic combined with a great sense of humor, traditional values balanced by a spirit of innovation, and fiscal prudence always tempered by compassion. He quickly became not only a valued colleague but also a trusted friend. John's extraordinary intellect, wisdom, and experience belied his young age and benefited this chamber and Nation. His upbringing in a family devoted to public service, his education in science, engineering, and business, and his experience in the House of Representatives made him a veteran from day one. His ability to analyze challenges and devise creative solutions made him an esteemed colleague. In the best tradition of the Senate, John brought his knowledge and experience to bear on some of the most pressing issues we face. In technology, he has been a leader committed to growth and advancement. He has been a devoted advocate for special education and rural health care. He has been a strong voice for our forest products industry and for a sound energy policy that would reduce our dangerous reliance on foreign oil. It has been an honor to work with him on the Homeland Security Committee. His diligence and commitment have helped make America safer. His tireless leadership to reform the Patriot Act demonstrated his unwavering commitment to safeguard the civil liberties Americans cherish. In addition to his leadership on national issues like the Patriot Act and tax policy, John has been an effective advocate for projects of special concern to New Hampshire, whether it is low-income heating assistance and weatherization programs or the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. We recently worked closely together with our two colleagues to secure $20 billion for the shipyard's new dry dock to help secure its future. Above all, Senator John Sununu has distinguished himself as a champion of good government. He is an independent thinker who stands up--always--for what he believes to be right for New Hampshire and right for our country. He has a sharp eye for wasteful spending and is a resolute fighter for fiscal responsibility. It has been an honor to serve with John, and I wish him and his family all [[Page S10966]] the best. I will miss serving with him day to day, but I know that he will continue to accomplish a great deal. pete domenici Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an undeniable, universally-acknowledged legend of the U.S. Senate, an outstanding public servant who has been a legislative master of this institution and its most labyrinthine but pivotal and influential procedures, and a U.S. Senator who, with passion and verve, brilliantly grasped the complex nuances of legislation without losing the broader perspective driving the national issues of the day. I am referring, of course, to the Senior Senator from New Mexico, Pete Domenici. In his 36 years serving the people of New Mexico in this venerable institution, Senator Domenici embraced and confronted the most difficult or consequential of matters regardless of opposition or the complexity of the subject. Indeed, Mr. President, as our country faces myriad challenges, it is with a heavy heart that we lose not only an exceptional colleague and friend to many of us, but one of the Senate's finest legislators. I had the distinct privilege of witnessing Pete Domenici's sterling leadership and political acumen firsthand when he chaired the Senate Committee on the Budget from 1995 to 2002 in three successive Congresses. Having been a member on the House Budget Committee, I can tell you that serving on the Senate Budget Committee during Pete's chairmanship represented a magnificent opportunity for a freshman Senator--not to mention the fact that Pete empathized with me as he had been offered a seat on the committee as a freshman Senator as well. Although Pete was quoted as saying that he joined the committee in 1973 ``because it was available to me as a freshman, when other committees were not,'' history will show that the Senate Budget Committee, the U.S. Senate, and the country were all well-served because of Pete Domenici's undaunted command of the budget process and the esteem and respect with which he was held by his colleagues. As I joined the Senate Budget Committee in 1995 with Chairman Domenici at the helm, we worked hand-and-glove to reprioritize our Federal budget, instill greater fiscal discipline, and pass a balanced budget for the first time in 26 years. Success was going to require dedication and pragmatism or in Pete's words, ``guts.'' I well recall standing on the floor of the Senate as we were debating the budget resolution, and, referencing Winston Churchill's famous remark, I said, ``I feel we finally have reached the `end of the beginning' of what I hope will eventually be known as the first seven- year budget to reach a balance in over a generation.'' And the force behind that legislative and budgetary milestone was the Senator we honor today, Pete Domenici. The ramifications of our work on that budget resolution, along with our strong bipartisan 92 to 8 victory on the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, represent a historic template for how this institution tackles budgetary issues today and likely will in the future. However, what has resonated the most through the years--and what is certainly one of the crowning hallmarks of his monumental legacy--is how Pete reminded us that the Senate can indeed achieve resolution by bridging the partisan divide and forsaking polarizing acrimony in favor of substantive action advancing the public good. Senator Domenici brought this same constancy of purpose and tireless commitment to the common good to his advocacy for mental health parity in healthcare coverage. Vigorously working across the aisle with Senators Wellstone and Kennedy, Senator Domenici demonstrated that building bipartisan coalitions based on common objectives and good will were not only possible but fundamental to creating good policy. As Senator Domenici made his compelling case against the inequality of mental healthcare to the White House and to each Member of the Senate, his personal history with the disease was conveyed in a manner that could not have been more poignant and powerful. The story of Clare, Senator Domenici's daughter, mirrors that of millions of Americans afflicted with a mental health disorder, and Senator Domenici courageously recognized that he was uniquely positioned to help shepherd the message that health care coverage should not financially discriminate on the basis of this disease. Although Senator Wellstone characterized his partnership with Senator Domenici as, ``an odd couple,'' where their political philosophies diverged, there common allegiance to making a difference paved the way for enormous strides that engendered an effective bond. And with stately leadership, Senator Domenici and Senator Kennedy rallied the Senate, which at that point had mourned the tragic loss of Senator Wellstone, to action, passing the Mental Health Parity Act which the President signed into law. Once again, Mr. President, Senator Domenici confounded the status quo and fought for meaningful change. I believe we ought to have more, not fewer, ``odd couples'' and alliances in the Senate, given that compromise and conciliation are the true and necessary lifelines to achieving real results. To that end, my hope is that the Domenici-Wellstone-Kennedy example will constitute a model for generations to come of bipartisanship and comity. And I couldn't have been more pleased, having been a longtime leader on this issue myself, to work in accord with Senator Domenici in bringing this matter to fruition in the 110th Congress. Lastly, I cannot help but applaud Senator Domenici for his indispensable role in championing the 2005 Energy Policy Act. And while we had some differences on policy, once again, true to his relentless work ethic, his can-do optimism, and dogged determination, what was most conspicuously vital and on display was Senator Domenici's pragmatism in crafting this legislation. Advancing this measure required Senator Domenici to compromise with his own colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. Yet they sought, found, and maximized the common denominators that would, in the end, allow this bill to be signed into law. It stands as an enduring testament to Senator Domenici that the final energy bill in 2005 passed with 71 votes, and Congress took a serious step forward in addressing our energy crisis. Time and again, Senator Domenici has placed legislative performance above political posturing, and a desire for concrete results above the din of discord and rancor. And in the process, Senator Domenici leaves a formidable legacy of establishing the standard for facilitating the budget process, providing mental health parity for millions of Americans, and forging a critical first step toward altering the course of our long-dormant energy policy. For well more than three decades, this institution has been blessed to have among our ranks one of the giant legislators of his generation and our time, and we will miss you Pete and all you brought to the Senate, to public service, and to the people of New Mexico. As the son of Italian immigrants, who worked in your father's whole grocery business, and who would later become a minor baseball pitcher, math teacher, lawyer, and then a legendary Senator--you truly exemplify the very best of the American story and dream. To Nancy and the entire Domenici family, thank you for sharing Pete with us and our country. We are all the better for knowing him, working with him, and calling him our colleague and friend. john warner Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend and colleague, a true giant of this institution, and a consummate public servant, the gentleman--and I use that term with every fiber of the true definition of the word--the gentleman from Virginia, Senator John Warner. Mr. President, in delivering these remarks, and most especially in considering Senator Warner's impending retirement from the Senate, I have chosen not to focus on the tremendous loss to this body that will occur with John's departure--though the dimension of that loss is indisputably monumental. Rather, I prefer to recall the incalculable contributions John has made to enhancing this institution since his arrival here nearly 30 years ago--and his unparalleled commitment to the state and the Nation he has served so honorably and so well. [[Page S10967]] John and I both came to the Congress at the same time--albeit to different chambers. I had long been familiar with Senator Warner's outstanding reputation as a man of strength, character, knowledge and integrity from my days in the House. And it didn't take long for me to find out why when I joined him in the Senate. Among many memories is my service on the Senate Armed Services Committee as Chair of the Seapower Subcommittee under John's leadership as chairman--and the command and the focus and the vision that he brought to that critical panel. I can tell you, with his long service on the committee--and of course as a former Secretary of the Navy, there wasn't anyone who instilled greater confidence when it came to meeting the challenges of limited defense dollars and the reality of that post-Cold War period than John Warner. I certainly well recall that at a time when our foreign policy had quite frankly made our Navy into America's ``Emergency 9-1-1'' force, with a 331 percent increase in contingency operations at that time from the previous ten years, at a time when the branches of the services weren't meeting their recruitment goals and the Air Force and Navy were woefully short of pilots, at a time when China was continuing to make quantum leaps in military technology, Senator Warner's expertise and leadership didn't arrive a moment to soon. I remember an instance when he called our allies to account on Kosovo--when he saw that our European partners had deployed only 722 of the 1,264 policemen they had promised to provide as part of the Kosovo Police Force, he held them to their commitment. He exposed that inequity and thanks to his hand at the helm they began to change their course. From day one as chairman, Senator Warner was relentless in scrutinizing existing defense programs as well as articulating a vision for the future. And no where was that more in evidence--or more prescient, for that matter, than when he created the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, to address everything from cyberterrorism to terrorist threats here at home. Indeed, as I said at an event at the time, ``the fact is, since Soviet power has receded from the heart of Europe, the United States faces more regionally diverse and unpredictable challenges to its national security than ever before. And John knew we must be prepared to respond.'' Well, that was and is the John Warner I know--always looking ahead, always anticipating the next challenge, and always working to meet those challenges head on. And above all else, no one, no one, is more concerned about the welfare and well-being of our brave men and women in uniform than John Warner. Interestingly, Senator Warner was Undersecretary of the Navy while the late Senator John Chafee served as Secretary. And might I just say as an aside, what an extraordinary duo would come out of the Pentagon to subsequently serve side-by-side in the United States Senate. And like John Chafee, John Warner earned the unwavering respect of our military men and women because of his unflagging respect for each and every one of them. Certainly, Senator Warner has always had unlimited enthusiasm and commitment for the men and women of the Navy and Marine Corps. In fact, I understand that, in a time before there were elevators and escalators in the Pentagon, he was known for quite literally bounding up the steps ``two by two'' in the mornings, and that he did so every morning to get to his office to serve the officers, sailors, and Marines for whom he cared so much. I am certain it is that very spirit that explains why he is so beloved by our members of the armed forces of the United States. I am certain it is also that spirit that's made him so beloved by members of this United States Senate. It's a spirit not only of ``can do'', but of ``must do''. It's an honor-bound dedication to the notion that we all have a sworn duty to our constitution and to our country to leave a better nation for having acted in our country's best interests. It's a quality we witnessed once again during historic debates on our course in our war in Iraq. Senator Warner consistently brought to bear his credibility, his gravitas, and his experience to elevate the Senate's deliberations and rise above the din of partisanship. What John Warner said on the matter of Iraq--or on any military issue of vital import--carried the weight of an intellect pledged solely to the concept and pursuit of doing what is right. And at no time was John's sense of the greater good more evident than in John's leadership in the so-called ``Gang of 14''--at a crossroads when the very institution of the Senate was caught in the cross-hairs of a struggle over judicial nominations. As we recall, at the time, the repeated, systemic filibuster of the President's nominees had been a corrosive force on the Senate. At the same time, the repeated, systematic filibuster of the President's nominees had been a corrosive force on the Senate. At the same time, exercising the so-called ``nuclear option''--that would have jettisoned the traditional rules governing these nominations--would truly have had longstanding consequences for the future of the Senate. But we set aside partisan differences to help forge consensus to safeguard a body constituted to be neither a rubber stamp nor a personalized veto. Just when we were about to cross a political Rubicon, this watershed compromise embraced and preserved the essence of our Founding Fathers' vision to achieve results through accommodation--and embodied the best traditions of the Senate. And John Warner was instrumental in standing up and leading that charge--once again, lending the gravity of his standing in the Senate to advance that crucial cause. So when I think of John Warner, I think of an embodiment of what our forefathers quite likely had in mind when they envisioned a U.S. Senator. Someone who is learned, who is deliberative, who is compassionate, who is considered, who is experienced, who is reasoned and measured in approach--but who is most undeniably unafraid to act decisively when circumstances demand. That is the caliber of the man to whom this institution is about to bid farewell. And as we do so, I also cannot help but recall the proud tradition of extraordinary thinkers and leaders that the great Commonwealth of Virginia has produced over centuries--the ranks of which John Warner is most unquestionably fit to occupy. What a credit he has been to his State, what a legacy he contributes to Virginia, and certainly to America. The people of Virginia could not have asked for a more eloquent and powerful voice in the U.S. Senate--and it was a powerful voice not for the brashness of its volume or tone, but because of the credibility and thoughtfulness behind the words and thoughts that voice delivered. Quite simply, he is truly one of the best--deeply respected, highly regarded, a principled, independent-minded voice of reason. He is what we need more of in government. And he sets an example for us all. He has also been a great friend to me--as he has to so many of us. I will miss the firmness and sincerity of his warm ``hellos''. I will miss running into him in the hallways, on the Senate subway, on this floor. I will miss his institutional wisdom and depth and breadth on the issues. I will miss his kindness and comradery. And, I imagine, there are 98 others in this Chamber who feel likewise. So let me just say, farewell, John Warner. And while none of us want to see you go, there is certainly unanimous consent that--as you yield the floor for the final time--no one is more deserving of this time to now spend with your family, your friends, and with whatever personal pursuit you may choose--than you, John, as a public servant of so many years, a public servant of great accomplishment, and a public servant of such positive and indelible consequence to the Senate, and to America. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it has been one of my great honors to serve with one of the most distinguished Senators in our body, Senator John Warner of Virginia. A man of great wisdom, a man committed to the country that he has served for many decades in a host of important positions. John Warner has never failed his Nation. In addition to his knowledge and [[Page S10968]] judgment which I so deeply respect and have so often followed, he is a true delight to be with and has the rare collegial skills to bring highly intelligent and committed Senators together for the common good. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as its ranking member and in the last 2 years as its de facto ranking member he has continued his record of superb service. We have gone through many difficult times and without his leadership I don't see how we could have worked our way through some of our Nation's great challenges. John Warner is a product of the heart of Virginia. Our affectionate title of ``squire'' reflects the recognition of his Virginia heritage and style. Among other good qualities no one is more delightful to travel with than John Warner. I cherish the opportunity to have listened to many of his stories both humorous and insightful. He is a walking student of American history. I urged him to seek reelection but he chose not to. He will be greatly missed. My best wishes go with him and his wife Jeanne. Mr. CHAMBLISS. I wish to speak of the retirement from the Senate of my friend Senator John Warner. Senator Warner is the quintessential Virginia Gentleman. He is gifted of speech, courteous, possesses courage and conviction, and is a defender of freedom and the Senator most committed to the protection of our men and women in uniform as well as their families. It has been my privilege to serve with Senator Warner on the Armed Services Committee. His leadership as Chairman was superb. His commitment to protecting America and Americans is unparalleled. From his days in the U.S. Navy to his years as Secretary of the Navy to his years in the U.S. Senate, John Warner has provided the kind of service and leadership that Virginians and Americans appreciate and respect. I will miss John Warner but certainly wish him and Jeanne Godspeed as they continue life's journey. Ted Stevens Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is always a bittersweet moment as the clock winds down on the last minutes of the current session of Congress and we start to pack up and get ready to head home for the holidays. As we do, it's always good to take a moment to reflect on all we have accomplished over the past 2 years and those special Senators who did a lot of the heavy lifting who will be returning home at the end of the year. That is when we begin to realize just how much they will be missed. Such a Senator is Ted Stevens. As Ted leaves Washington for his beloved Alaska, he will long be remembered for a long list of achievements in the Senate. The fact that he is the Senate's longest serving Republican is no accident. It came abut because Ted always had one foot in Washington and the other in his home State of Alaska. He was always heading back home whenever it was possible to keep in touch with the people of his State and let them know what he was doing on their behalf in Washington. Ted has an affection for super heroes and that is no surprise because Ted is one. He may not be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but he was able to make sure that the needs of his constituents were heard and addressed unlike any other Senator for his entire Senate career. The people of Alaska watched Ted hard at work in Washington and they liked what they saw. It isn't any wonder that the folks back home call him not Senator Stevens but Uncle Ted. When Ted returns home, Alaska will have lost a powerful force in the Senate. He is not only his State's greatest fighter, but he is also Alaska's best ambassador. He loves his State and he loves showing it off whenever he can. Many of us have had a chance to enjoy a wonderful dose of his special brand of Alaskan hospitality when we have had a chance to take a trip to visit that remarkable land up north. I love fishing and hunting and all the activities that are possible in the great outdoors. So, for me, it was a special pleasure to be in Alaska and have a chance to take part in Ted's Kenai Tournament. Alaska is a magical place and the fishing and the scenery there is second only to Wyoming. More importantly, the Kenai Tournament is more than a social occasion or a chance to get in some great fishing during a break. It has a much more important purpose. The tournament was created to help raise the funds that are needed to restore and improve the habitat of the salmon in Alaska and over the years it has done a remarkable job of both protecting and helping to promote the wonders of his home State. It might surprise some people to learn how much Ted loves the environment of his State and how concerned he is that it continues to be preserved for future generations to enjoy. It's a cause that Ted has worked on as he dealt with all of us in working to pass bills that would help to keep Alaska's great outdoors open and available to all those who love to hike, fish, hunt or just stand back and admire the scenery. Like me, Ted knows that our national treasures should be maintained not by excessive and intrusive regulation, but through the efforts of good stewards of the land who understand its value and its importance to our future as a nation. For almost 40 years, whenever it came to fighting for Alaska's best interests on the Senate floor, or promoting the treasures of Alaska at home or here in Washington or anywhere in between, Ted Stevens has been the voice of Alaska. Whenever an issue was brought up in the Senate that affected his State, we all knew immediately to find out what Ted thinks. He always knew what would be best for Alaska and when he spoke, we all stopped to listen. Alaska is perhaps best known for its towering spectacular and imposing mountains that seem to rise dramatically right out of the ocean. It is the perfect backdrop for Ted Stevens who is a man to match their mountains. Ted is a landmark of service and he has achieved a mountain of results for the people of his State. As I have come to know Ted I have become very aware of the truth of the old adage that it isn't the number of years in your life that determines who you are, it is the amount of life in your years. For his entire Senate career, Ted has kept up an incredible pace and he has the results to show for it. He just celebrated his birthday and I can say that he is a very young 85 years of age. He won't mind my mentioning his age. He's proud of it. He's earned every year of it and he certainly hasn't been taking it easy. At a time in his life when most people his age are sitting back and relaxing, Ted has been fighting here in Washington to protect their benefits, keep their taxes under control, and reduce Federal spending so that they could have the peace of mind that comes from knowing that things are in good hands--Ted's hands. Ted and I get along so well because in a lot of ways, Wyoming is a lot like Alaska, and that often puts Ted and me on the same side on a lot of issues. We both understand the needs of rural America, and we both know how important it is to see that those needs are met. His determination to serve the people back home was most evident when he took aim at keeping universal phone service in operation. He knew how important phone service is to people, especially those in isolated areas. For them, a phone is more than just an instrument they can use to keep in touch with others. For those in remote regions, a phone is their lifeline. It helps to provide them with the peace of mind that comes from knowing they can place a call and report an emergency whenever they are facing a life threatening emergency. For them and for all Alaskans, there was never any substitute for knowing that the Senator who speaks for you, understands your life and your needs and Ted has been the one to do that--ever since he first came to Washington. It will be tough to say goodbye to Ted when he leaves Washington because I will miss having him riding shotgun as we go to work on those issues that are going to make a difference in the lives of the people of our states. As we say in Wyoming, Ted is a guy who walks the walk and doesn't just talk the talk. He says what he means and he means what he says. You know just where you stand when you deal with Ted and he has never been one to back down from a fight in committee or on the Floor. In the years to come, whenever I think of Ted I will remember him as a man of action who knew it was more [[Page S10969]] important to get things done than to talk about doing things. He was always quick to put his words into action and get results. He has a wealth of knowledge about how to get things done in the Senate--and done right. When it comes to being an effective Senator, Ted could have written the book on it. I won't say goodbye, Ted, I will just say we'll see you around town. I have no doubt that we will keep in touch with you and I am sure you will keep in touch with us--whenever something comes up in the Senate that we need to fine tune to make sure it treats Alaskans just right. Thanks for all you have done for me, for the West, for Alaska and for this Nation. Thanks most of all for your friendship. That is something I will always treasure most of all. Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about my great friend, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who has served in the U.S. Senate for 40 years and is the longest-serving Republican Senator in history. On a personal note, I have always enjoyed working with Senator Stevens, and it has been a true privilege to collaborate with him on some of the most important issues facing our great Nation--including energy, health care, and national defense. Senator Stevens' service to the United States didn't begin when he stepped inside this Chamber. Rather, his service began decades earlier--during some of the most harrowing days of World War II. Senator Stevens was part of the Greatest Generation who fought and won that global struggle for freedom--flying a C-47 in the China-Burma- India theater. Incredibly, over 1,000 of Senator Stevens' fellow airmen died ``flying the hump'' and elsewhere in the China-Burma-India theater--a sobering reminder of the high price of freedom. For his heroic efforts, Senator Stevens later received two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals, as well as the Yuan Hai medal awarded by the Republic of China. After the war, Senator Stevens completed his education at UCLA and Harvard Law School, and then moved to Alaska, which was then a U.S. territory. In the city of Fairbanks, Senator Stevens practiced law for several years, until he came to Washington, DC to serve in the Eisenhower administration, and also to lobby for Alaska's admittance into the Union--a mission that succeeded in 1959. When Senator Stevens returned to Alaska, he ran for--and won--a seat in the Alaska House of Representatives, and later became House Majority Leader. Then, in December 1968, Governor Walter J. Hickel appointed him to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate. In 1970, the voters of Alaska ratified that choice by electing Senator Stevens to finish that term in a special election, and then re- electing him six more times, always by overwhelming margins. Senator Stevens' achievements are legendary in this Chamber-- including (but not limited to) Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate--putting him third in line for the Presidency from January 2003 to January 2007. For his many decades of service, Senator Stevens has received and accepted numerous honors--including having the Anchorage International Airport named after him. Our entire country has been enriched and improved by his hard work, dedication, and leadership. I say this, not as a distant observer, but as an up-close witness to his achievements. Back in 1993, when I first arrived in the U.S. Senate, I was one of only seven female Senators, and if the Senate was a men's club, then the Appropriations Committee was its inner sanctum. There was not a single woman on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, but that's where I wanted to serve. I explained to Senator Stevens--who was then the ranking member of the committee--that Texas has more Army soldiers than any other State, more Air Force Airmen and women stationed in Texas than any other State, and our defense industry builds everything from fighter aircraft to Army trucks to artillery systems to sophisticated electronics equipment for the Pentagon. Therefore, it was absolutely essential that a Senator from Texas serve on that committee. After some careful thought, Senator Stevens agreed and welcomed me to the committee. And since that time, he has been a valuable mentor to me--not to mention a passionate advocate for Alaska and America. And when I say passion, I really do mean passion. Senator Stevens has been known to show dramatic performances on the Senate floor, keeping wandering eyes focused on the urgent issues that need to be addressed. One day, during a mark-up in the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, who chaired the committee at the time, grew very animated and laid down the law. When a frustrated senior Senator told Senator Stevens that ``there was no reason to lose your temper,'' Senator Stevens glared back and responded, ``I never lose my temper. I always know exactly where I left it.'' But if Senator Stevens has a temper, he also has a compassionate heart. I will never forget when a group of protestors gathered outside of the Appropriations Committee conference to demand increased funding for breast cancer research. One particularly agitated advocate got in Senator Stevens' face and said, ``If men were dying of breast cancer, you wouldn't think twice about increasing the funding.'' Needless to say, those words made quite an impact on Senator Stevens, but probably not what this advocate anticipated. When Senator Stevens walked back into the conference, he repeated the charge and then looked around at his mostly male colleagues. He knew that at least six of them suffered from prostate cancer. He also noticed that the bill they were considering didn't fund prostate cancer research. But thanks to the excellent suggestion of the woman in the hallway, he was going to advocate breast cancer research and prostate cancer research. Senator Stevens was determined to become a leader on these issues, and over time, that is certainly what he's become. I congratulate Senator Stevens on all that he's accomplished for Alaska and America, and I wish him well in his retirement. CHUCK HAGEL Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to express my enormous gratitude and deep appreciation to my good friend and colleague, Senator Chuck Hagel, for his 12 years of sterling leadership and steadfast service in the U.S. Senate. A man of deep-seated principle, honor, conscience, and conviction, Senator Hagel has been a stalwart legislator and an unwavering guardian of the first branch of government during his remarkable two-term tenure in the Senate. And, having served with Chuck side-by-side for that entire period--including, in the 107th Congress on the Senate Committee on the Budget, and subsequently for the remaining three Congresses on the Senate Committee on Intelligence--I can attest firsthand to the tremendous intellect, independence, and integrity that he has brought to his office and to some of the most consequential debates of our time. Anyone familiar with Senator Hagel's background will notice readily how a fourth generation Nebraskan steeped in the time-honored traditions and mores of the heartland was well-equipped with the bedrock character and unshakable foundation necessary to reach the highest heights in both the public and private sector. Whether serving as President Reagan's Deputy Administrator of the Veterans' Administration, demonstrating keen entrepreneurial acumen as an early leader in the cellphone industry, heading the World USO, or eventually running successfully for the U.S. Senate from Nebraska, the common denominator, time and again, pervading Senator Hagel's life--and what has shaped his renowned trajectory of accomplishment in every undertaking he has pursued--has been his unwavering love for his country and abiding faith in its founding principles. Nowhere was Senator Hagel's devotion to our Nation more paramount [[Page S10970]] than when his country called on him to serve in Vietnam, where he and his brother Tom, having bravely enlisted together, fought shoulder-to- shoulder as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army's 9th Infantry Division. Both displayed enormous heroism on the field of battle and were decorated soldiers, with Chuck earning two Purple Hearts. As you can imagine, it has been a privilege over these past 12 years to witness the courage and candor of this American hero and esteemed colleague, whether on measures addressing war, specifically in Iraq, or matters concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. Senator Hagel was indeed my compatriot and ideological soul mate on the Senate Intelligence Committee. If you must go into battle whether in war or in politics, you want to engage your opponents with someone of Chuck Hagel's mettle and fortitude. A true conservative who believes in limited government--and that the diffusion of power and authority are the surest check against despotism and the best hope for democracy--Senator Hagel has demonstrated a visceral and unending passion for this institution and for the possibilities of effective governance by people of good will. And Senator Hagel crystallized this deeply held belief in his farewell speech on the floor of the Senate when he emphasized to his colleagues that . . . Article I of the constitution is about the Congress. We are a co-equal branch of government. And if anything I've learned in the 12 years I've been here is the importance of sharing, participating in the governance of our country, being part of that governance, helping make decisions with the president and the executive. Finally, as a Mainer, I must say how fitting it was that a few years ago Senator Hagel was recognized as one of the esteemed recipients of The Edmund S. Muskie Distinguished Public Service Award. Senator Hagel exemplifies the best of the Muskie tradition which was built upon certain irrefutable, sterling standards for high intellect, unassailable integrity, and a lifetime of legendary service. To his wife Lilibet and their daughter Allyn and son Ziller, thank you for sharing your husband and your father with us for these 12 years. And to Chuck, we will miss your voice and your vision. By your words and in your deeds, you bring to mind the Greek playwright and poet, Aeschylus, who wrote that ``his resolve is not to seem the bravest, but to be.'' You have been a brave steward of the public trust, and we are forever thankful. Wayne Allard Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one of the great privileges of my tenure in the Senate has been to serve with my colleague Wayne Allard from Colorado. He and his wonderful wife and partner Joan have contributed greatly to the life of the Senate. Wayne has been a leading advocate for a strong space and missile defense program, an important issue when he chaired the Strategic Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Armed Services. I was honored to follow him in that position when he moved to the prestigious Appropriations Committee. Wayne has also been a firm and consistent voice for a sound economic policy based on the free market, lower taxes, free trade, and restraint in spending. Day after day--year after year--he never wavered in those principles. I deeply regret that Wayne took a pledge to not seek a third term in the Senate. His unqualified commitment to principle will be sorely missed. Wayne is a man of integrity, and he never hesitated to keep the promise he made to the voters of Colorado. Wayne and I came to the Senate together. We have been good friends throughout our time here. We have stood together in the Armed Services Committee in support of our men and women in uniform. We were thrilled to see the child tax credit become law, providing relief to hard- working American families. We witnessed many other important pieces of legislation be enacted into law. And we were able to stop quite a few bad pieces also. Mary and I send our best and most sincere wishes to Wayne and Joan. I know that he will continue to contribute to the good of Colorado and to the Nation. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgS10959,2008-12-12,110,2,,,House of Representatives,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10959,S10959,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10959,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10959] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [[Page S10959]] House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 11 a.m. _________________________________" CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgS10970,2008-12-12,110,2,,,AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY CRISIS,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10970,S10970,"[{""name"": ""Ron Wyden"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""John F. Kerry"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10970,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10970] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY CRISIS Mr. WYDEN. Yesterday, when I heard the majority leader was going to call a cloture vote, I changed my schedule and hurriedly returned to Washington, DC, from Oregon, where I had been working on the Oregon Business Plan at the Oregon Business Summit in Portland. I was on an airplane, about an hour away from the Capitol, when the Senate Leader called the vote, and I missed the cloture vote on the $14 billion loan package for the U.S. automobile industry. It is my understanding that if my vote could have possibly made the difference, the Leader would have waited for my plane to arrive, but I want it to be noted that it was my intention to vote for cloture. While I continue to have concerns about ensuring that taxpayers are protected if this loan is to occur, I believe that if the President can unwisely provide $700 billion of taxpayer money for the investment banks that took horribly unacceptable risks and helped trigger an economic collapse, we certainly have a duty to attempt to preserve a cornerstone domestic industry and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of working people whose personal actions are in no way responsible for the current economic crisis. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed that the Senate was not able to pass legislation to make bridge loan funding available to our country's automotive industry--not because I condone the behavior of these companies in recent years which brought them to the brink but because I believe allowing their failure at a time of great economic uncertainty could deal a serious blow to our national economy. The domestic automotive industry represents almost four percent of our Nation's gross domestic product and ten percent of our industrial production by value. One out of every 10 U.S. jobs is impacted by the U.S. automotive industry. GM, Ford and Chrysler account for roughly 65 percent of U.S. auto production and support millions of jobs across all 50 States. The Center for Automotive Research recently reported that in Massachusetts alone, the automobile industry accounts for more than 28,000 jobs and $256 million in wages. The bridge loans that would have been made available through this legislation would have gone to protect not only the jobs dependent on this industry but the American economy as a whole, which is suffering from a widespread liquidity crisis that extends well beyond the vital automotive sector. I believe this critical moment presents an opportunity for the Federal Government and the automobile manufacturers to transform an industry that has long resisted the changes that are so clearly necessary for their continued global competitiveness. The assistance provided in the bill was conditioned upon a commitment by the industry to use this money wisely to become more efficient market participants. The legislation included important provisions that would help ensure American taxpayers that this assistance is not used as a line of credit simply to continue business as usual. The legislation also included important safeguards to limit executive compensation to ensure that taxpayer funds are not wasted. I was absent for the vote that occurred Thursday evening because--as the incoming Foreign Relations Committee Chairman--I was representing the Senate at ongoing international climate change negotiations being held in Poznan, Poland. But I was prepared to return from Poland at a moment's notice had we reached a bipartisan agreement or were my vote needed to pass cloture and break a logjam. Instead, thanks to obstruction by the minority, the 110th Congress has come to a close, and the automobile industry teeters on the brink of collapse. In the absence of Congressional action, I urge the President to tap the Troubled Assets Relief Program so that American automakers can access sufficient capital to survive in the short-term. I remain hopeful that the 111th Congress will be a Congress of real economic progress and will work to ensure that the American automobile industry remains globally competitive in the long-term. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgS10971,2008-12-12,110,2,,,TARP SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10971,S10973,"[{""name"": ""Claire McCaskill"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Patrick J. Leahy"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]","[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""S"", ""number"": ""3731""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""S"", ""number"": ""3731""}]",154 Cong. Rec. S10971,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10971-S10973] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [[Page S10971]] TARP SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, this week, the Senate passed an important piece of legislation sponsored by Senator Grassley and myself, that was needed to assure the new Special Inspector General for the $700 billion financial rescue program could staff up quickly and have the ability to do his job. S. 3731's other cosponsors--Senators Collins, Lieberman, Snowe, Dodd, Bunning, Schumer, Levin, Carper, Coleman and Cantwell--were also key to securing unanimous support for this bill in the Senate. Finally, I want to give special thanks to Senators Baucus and Shelby for working closely with us to craft a strong bipartisan bill. This legislation, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, SIGTARP, would specifically grant the Special IG created under TARP earlier this fall to have full oversight over all activities under the TARP program. The bill would have also granted the IG the temporary hiring authority needed to quickly hire the dozens of auditors required to conduct this critical oversight. As the original Inspector General language is written under current law, Mr. Barofsky, who was confirmed as the Special Inspector General this week, must hire his entire staff using normal civil service channels. I am a big proponent of using the normal hiring process whenever possible. But that process is time consuming and can take weeks, sometimes months, to hire one person. Meanwhile, this money is flying out the door. TARP has given out nearly all of the first $350 billion, and they have already told us they want the second half soon. Yet, Mr. Barofsky has no staff, and he won't have staff for some time. We need to fix this--right now. Our bill would also make clear that the Special Inspector General has oversight authority over the entire relief program. As written right now, SIGTARP has oversight authority over only two sections of the relief program. Why would we want to limit the Inspector General to only certain sections of this program? Our legislation would make clear that SIGTARP has oversight duties over all of TARP. This would include sections related specifically to assistance to homeowners and promulgation of conflict of interest rules by the Secretary of the Treasury. Senator Snowe added some provisions to assure that the IG would provide Congress and the public a thorough analysis of TARP's spending, as well as a requirement for Treasury officials to report to Congress an explanation if they did not implement the IG's recommendations. As a former auditor, nothing is more frustrating than seeing your recommendations completely ignored. I would never claim that all audit recommendations can, or should, be immediately implemented. But we need to be able to assure ourselves that these recommendations are taken seriously and are being considered. We should know the reason if these recommendations are not implemented. Finally, Senator Snowe suggested that we should make sure that the Special Inspector General has the resources he needs by imposing a time limit on providing him with the money allocated to his office in the original bill. The relationship between an agency and an office charged with overseeing them is a delicate one. Tensions sometimes arise due to the fact that IGs must rely on the agency they audit and investigate for their resources. While I have no reason to think that the Treasury Department would deny Mr. Barofsky the funds needed to perform his duties, this provision would eliminate that tension. Unfortunately, we were not able to secure passage of this legislation in the House before we adjourned this week. I will do everything I can to bring it back first thing in the 111th Congress to secure its quick passage in both chambers and signed into law to assure we have strong oversight on the $700 billion financial rescue program. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the President-elect's selection of Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States, provide an historic opportunity for the country to move past the partisanship of the past decades, and work together to solve the Nation's problems, protect against serious threats, and meet some of the greatest challenges of our time. We all know these men. They have long and distinguished records of service and accomplishments. They can make a real difference if we join with them, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. The need for new leadership at the Department of Justice is as critical today as it has ever been. The Judiciary Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, spent a good deal of time and effort during this Congress uncovering scandals at the Department. Former Attorney General Gonzales, Karl Rove, Mr. Rove's White House deputies, and virtually the entire leadership at the Department resigned in the wake of congressional investigation. Since then, the Inspector General at the Department has confirmed many of our findings and fears, and there are still more reports to come. An ongoing criminal investigation is being conducted by a specially appointed prosecutor. The crisis at the Department of Justice is not resolved, but ongoing. I want to continue the work we began last year when I scheduled prompt hearings and the Senate proceeded to confirm Michael Mukasey, Mark Filip and Kevin O'Connor to serve as Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General after the Rove-Gonzales resignations, even though we were on the eve of the election of a new President. We cannot now delay restoring the Justice Department and the confidence the American people have in our justice system. We must promptly consider and confirm Eric H. Holder Jr., and other nominees of the new President. I was encouraged by the initial reaction in mid-November when Mr. Holder's name was reported as the likely nominee, and when he was designated by the President-elect on December 1. Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledged his qualifications and praised the choice. I appreciate the willingness of Larry Thompson, who was confirmed early in 2001 as President Bush's first Deputy Attorney General; Louis Freeh, the former Director of the FBI; and Fran Townsend, President Bush's former Homeland Security advisor, to speak out in support of Mr. Holder's designation. As early as November 19, the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee said that he would not hold up the matter, but ``would be prepared to move ahead very promptly with hearings.'' I appreciated and shared his desire to proceed ``as fast as we can move'' and his commitment that he ``wouldn't hold it up.'' He said that he hoped Mr. Holder would ``re-professionalize'' the Justice Department. I hope so, too. I agree with Senator Specter that we need to strengthen the Justice Department. He and I coauthored an article in the Politico before the election. In a sentence Senator Specter quoted recently on the Senate floor, we wrote: ``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 Justice Department, day in and day out, without regard to politics or ideology, doing their best to enforce the law and promote justice.'' I have every confidence that Eric Holder is such a person, and I said so in this chamber on November 20. Indeed, in his brief remarks on the morning he was designated, Mr. Holder expressed just such appreciation. I know that the professionals at the Department of Justice reacted with delight when he was named because they know him well. They know him from his 12 years at the Public Integrity Section, from his time as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, from his tenure on the bench, and from his years as the Deputy Attorney General, the second- highest ranking official of the Department. His prompt confirmation will do a great deal to restore morale throughout the Justice Department. I have called Mr. Holder a prosecutor's prosecutor. He participated in a number of prosecutions and appeals involving such defendants as the State Treasurer of Florida, a former Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, a local judge in Philadelphia, an Assistant United States Attorney in New York City, an FBI agent, a ``capo'' in [[Page S10972]] an organized crime family, and a powerful Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. After he served for a dozen years as a prosecutor, President Reagan nominated Mr. Holder to be a judge, and he served with distinction on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. He left the bench to become the first African American U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, heading the largest U.S. Attorney's office in the country. Four years later, Mr. Holder was nominated to the important post of Deputy Attorney General. I worked with Senator Hatch, who was then Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to report his nomination favorably to the Senate. I was disturbed that an anonymous Republican hold delayed consideration of his nomination for three weeks, but when the Senate finally voted, the vote was unanimous. All 100 Senators voted to confirm Eric H. Holder Jr. to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. He became the first African-American in the history of the Department to achieve that high position. Eric Holder has prosecuted high-level public officials and organized crime, developed comprehensive programs to combat domestic violence, child abuse, and violent crime, and revitalized programs to assist crime victims. He helped guide the Department's efforts on the criminal prosecution of corporations, health care fraud, computer crimes, software piracy, and helped develop the community prosecution model. He has served at nearly every level of the Department of Justice he would lead. He is a public servant who will have broad support within the law enforcement community. He has already received the support of the 7,000 member National District Attorneys Association, NDAA. It was when I was the vice president of that association and Arlen Specter was the District Attorney in Philadelphia that the ranking member and I first met. The NDAA indicates that it feels a special relationship with Mr. Holder because he was a street crime prosecutor. Having a prompt confirmation hearing for the new Attorney General is in keeping with how we have treated all the men and women nominated to be Attorney General in the 34 years I have served in the Senate, in particular at the beginning of a newly-elected President's term. That is how the Senate acted on President Carter's appointment of Attorney General Griffin Bell. That is how we acted on President Reagan's appointment of Attorney General William French Smith. When I chaired the Judiciary Committee as President Bush was preparing to take office, I began the hearing on his selection for Attorney General just 25 days after his designation. Likewise, last year I rejected the efforts by some on my side of the aisle to delay hearings on Michael Mukasey and proceeded on that nomination in 30 days. I did not curb the rights of Committee members to pose questions to then-nominee Mukasey during his confirmation process; I do not intend to do so with Eric Holder. I want to be as fair to President-elect Obama and to Mr. Holder as we have been to others. I have noticed the hearing for the next Attorney General to begin 39 days after he was officially designated and 52 days after we all began reviewing his record following press reports on November 18. In my statement to the Senate on November 20, I commended Senators Hatch, Sessions, Coburn, and Grassley for their nonpartisanship when they praised his selection. Senator Hatch spoke of his support for Mr. Holder, his experience and reputation. Senator Sessions, a former prosecutor, U.S. Attorney, and State Attorney General who is well aware of the problems at the Justice Department, said he was disposed to support him. Senator Coburn called it ``a good choice.'' In addition, Senator Grassley has acknowledged Mr. Holder's impeccable credentials while reserving judgment. But of course since then, Karl Rove has appeared on the Today Show and signaled that Republicans ought to go after Mr. Holder. Right-wing talk radio took up the drum beat. I think the responsibilities of the Attorney General of the United States are too important to have that appointment delayed by partisan bickering, by some tit-for-tat drawn out process. This is a public servant we have known and worked with for more than 20 years, and the Senate has previously confirmed him three times to important positions. His record of public service, his integrity, his experience and the commitment to the rule of law that he will bring to the office of the Attorney General of the United States deserve better. He should not be made a pawn in some partisan political game. I began the week meeting with Mr. Holder. He did not defend the Rich pardon. That is hardly a new matter. It was the subject of House hearings and a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing chaired by Senator Specter in 2001, almost 8 years ago. That is not a reason to delay his confirmation hearing. In fact, the confirmation hearing will give those who have doubts and need reassurance the chance to ask Mr. Holder about that matter and hear about it directly from him. I thought the President-elect had it right when he said recently that Mr. Holder has acknowledged that the Rich pardon was a mistake. President-elect Obama agrees. I agree. President-elect Obama said: ``But when you look at the totality of his experience, there is no doubt that he is going to be an outstanding Attorney General.'' That is the essential point. Like the President-elect, I want the American people to have confidence that laws are being evenly applied to everyone and that we are working with local and state as well as Federal officials constantly to improve our criminal justice system. Public confidence and faith in that system has been shaken during the last several years, and Mr. Holder can help restore it. We need the new Attorney General to be a person of integrity and experience, who can inspire the thousands of hardworking prosecutors, agents and employees who do their best every day to enforce the law and promote justice without regard to partisan politics. We need an Attorney General, as Attorney General Robert H. Jackson said 68 years ago about the Federal prosecutor, ``who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.'' That is the kind of man Eric Holder is, the kind of prosecutor Eric Holder always was and the kind of Attorney General he would be. The next Attorney General will understand our moral and legal obligation to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans and to respect the human rights of all people. Eric Holder will ensure that the Department of Justice is working to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, not working to circumvent them. I was struck by the contrast between what President Bush and Alberto Gonzales said at that announcement and how President-elect Obama and Mr. Holder spoke at his. This is part of the change we need, the change the American people voted for and hunger for. President-elect Obama said: ``Let me be clear. The Attorney General serves the American people. And I have every expectation that Eric will protect our people, uphold the public trust, and adhere to our Constitution.'' The next President understands the role of the Attorney General of the United States and that it is not as counselor to the President. I have no doubt that Mr. Holder understands the independence required of the Attorney General and that his experience and lessons he has learned will serve him and the American people well. No one should have to remind us how decimated the Department of Justice was during recent years, or how important it is that it be restored. I think it was Senator Specter who called it dysfunctional and said that morale was in disarray. We understand that it is all too important that the Department have its senior leadership in place without delay. We must act on this nomination; the Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the country and a key member of the national security team. When President Bush nominated Michael Mukasey last year, Senator Kyl said: ``Since the Carter administration, attorney general nominees have been confirmed, on average, in approximately three weeks, with some being confirmed even more quickly. The Senate should immediately move to consider Judge Mukasey's nomination and ensure he is confirmed before Congress [[Page S10973]] recesses for Columbus Day.'' I held that hearing within 30 days. We should not change the standards now that a Democrat is making the selection. During my time in the Senate, serving during 8 presidential terms, there has been an average of 29 days between announcement of an Attorney General designation and the start of hearings, and 37 days on average from the announcement of the nominee to the Committee vote. The Holder hearing was set for 39 days after announcement, with the hope that he can be considered by the Committee within 50 days. That does not seem unreasonable. I do appreciate that we and our staffs will be working over the holidays, but we have been called upon many times to do so during the last several tumultuous years. This is not the occasion to convert our consideration of an executive branch nomination into the kind of searching scrutiny we rightly provide for lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, which is apparently what the Republican side is intent upon doing. This is no ordinary time. Over the last 8 years, political manipulation and influence from partisan political operatives in the White FIouse have undercut the Department of Justice in its mission, severely undermined the morale of its career professionals, and shaken public confidence in our Federal justice system. During those 8 years, we experienced the attacks of September 11 and have retooled the Justice Department and the FBI to work closely with the intelligence community in our efforts to prevent terrorism. Never has it been more important to have an experienced hand as Attorney General. I hope our Republican Members will resist the temptation toward partisanship and join with us to consider this appointment fairly and promptly. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgS10973-2,2008-12-12,110,2,,,HONORING LAWRENCE MCHUGH,SENATE,SENATE,HONORING,S10973,S10974,"[{""name"": ""Christopher J. Dodd"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10973,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10973-S10974] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] HONORING LAWRENCE MCHUGH Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in these times of financial uncertainty, today I would like to take the time to commend Mr. Lawrence McHugh of my State, and to recognize his 25 years of leadership at the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce. In Larry's quarter century as the president of the organization, membership has grown from 282 to a total of 2,400 members who employ over 50,000 individuals in central Connecticut. The Chamber itself now employs 22 people and increased its annual budget from $109,000 in 1983 to over $2 million in 2007. [[Page S10974]] Mr. McHugh has served as the president of the Connecticut Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives and vice chair of both the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission and the Connecticut Tourism Council, as well as on many other boards of organizations that seek to improve businesses and communities across the State. Impressive as these figures may be, the true measure of his contributions to his community cannot be measured by statistics or figures. Larry McHugh has shown remarkable leadership in protecting not only the local businesses of central Connecticut, but also the future of our State through his extensive work with our youth. Following an injury that ended his football career with the AFL's New York Titans, Larry took a position as the football coach for Xavier High School in Middletown, CT where he spent 20 years inspiring his athletes to great success both on and off the field. He would later combine his interest in achieving the best for his students and athletes with his business savvy in spending 8 years as the head of fund raising for Mercy and Xavier High Schools. Fortunately for the youth of Connecticut, Larry has continued to invest in their futures in the years since his retirement from coaching. Under Larry's leadership, the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce has consistently promoted programs seeking to partner businesses with the young people of the State, both equipping the youth with real life experiences and business opportunities and providing local businesses with the ability to reinvest in the futures of their companies. Larry has placed a premium on establishing a vital connection between businesses and the community's greatest asset--its human capital. Despite great worries over our national economy, it is of the utmost comfort to me to know that the businesses of central Connecticut are under the leadership of a man who has a proven record of doing great things for his Chamber and for his community. I would like to join my voice with those across Connecticut that already speak of his success with the greatest respect, and commend Larry McHugh for his 25 years of service. His continued focus on the promise of the future convinces me that there is none better to be leading the local industries at such a time as this. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgS10973,2008-12-12,110,2,,,ALAN NEWMAN: CONDUCTOR OF COSMIC SYMPHONIES,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10973,S10973,"[{""name"": ""Patrick J. Leahy"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10973,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10973] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] ALAN NEWMAN: CONDUCTOR OF COSMIC SYMPHONIES Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Burlington Free Press recently published a profile of Alan Newman, a habitual entrepreneur who has be the genius and force behind a number of companies established in and around Burlington, VT. Anyone who has met Alan is immediately embraced by his creative exuberance. That creativity combined with his unique vision and style create a special brew that has resulted in an incredible run of establishing successful companies. I wish to recognize Alan for his accomplishments and I ask that a copy of the entire Burlington Free Press article be printed in the Record. [Burlington Free Press, Dec. 8, 2008] Alan Newman Opens Up (By Dan McLean) South Burlington.--Alan Newman, co-founder and president of Magic Hat Brewing Co., has helped create about a half- dozen Vermont-based companies. During his decades of building businesses, he has learned where he excels--and when he has reached his limit. ``My skill appears to be starting and growing businesses,'' including building a brand and a culture for the company, Newman said. When businesses hit about $7.5 million in annual revenue and reach about 50 employees, Newman says he has arrived at his ``level of incompetence.'' Newman said he reached that modified Peter Principle with Magic Hat about six years ago. Newman said if he remains at the helm after a company has hit that threshold, ``the organization starts to fall apart.'' ``We started having trouble shipping things that people had ordered. Communication within staff starts to falter. Planning doesn't happen properly,'' he said. ``As you hit a certain size, you need a little more discipline. You need a little more management. That's where I start not performing well.'' ``I'm really an opportunity junkie,'' Newman said. ``I'm very good at seeing opportunities and going for them . . . but at some point you need to stop chasing every possibility and focus on a plan.'' That's where Martin Kelly comes in. Kelly served as CEO of Magic Hat and is now CEO of Magic Hat's parent company, Independent Brewers United Inc., which was formed when Magic Hat bought Seattle-based Pyramid Breweries Inc. last spring for $35 million. Newman said Kelly has been a crucial part of the operation during the past few years. ``I create chaos and he tries to control it,'' he said. Newman is president of Magic Hat, but prefers his informal title, ``conductor of cosmic symphonies.'' `` That's really my title,'' he said. Newman, who had a hand in the creation of Gardeners Supply Co., Seventh Generation and Magic Hat, says he has no secret to starting successful ventures. ``I really don't. It really started by accident,'' Newman said in an interview in his office located in a modestly appointed trailer, named Sweet Lillian, next to the South Burlington brewery. ``I was sick and tired of getting fired,'' he said, recalling his time in Vermont in the mid-1970s. ``I just figured I better figure out how to support myself if I wanted to stay in Vermont. I just kind of followed my nose. ``I irritate people. I'm really not a good employee. I'm highly insubordinate,'' he said, explaining that starting a business was a better option than working for someone else. ``It's been a constant theme in my life and career.'' Newman insists he is in an unlikely executive. ``Honestly,'' he said, wearing bright-yellow glasses and a tie-dye shirt. ``There is nothing in my background. I never had any interest in business. I never had any interest in starting businesses. ``I've never taken a business course in my life,'' he said, downplaying the importance of an MBA. ``I'm not an education- driven guy. I believe in experience.'' Newman, 62, was born in Brooklyn and grew up on Long Island. He attended Long Island University with a major in psychology and minors in sociology and English. ``I have always been interested in culture. I grew up in the '60s.'' Newman said his strengths are creating culture, branding and a vision for the companies. ``The business, to me, is secondary. I'm more interested in painting pictures,'' he said. A crucial part of forming a company's ``painting'' is culture and philosophy. ``It's never been about making money.'' ``It's about trying to create a picture, trying to create a culture and trying to marry them. This is kind of what I do know,'' he said. For Magic Hat that philosophy is: ``to be a good neighbor in our community,'' he said. Magic Hat, he said, assists a series of nonprofits including Vermont Cares, Committee on Temporary Shelter and The Women's Rape Crisis Center. ``That's the part I get addicted to,'' he said. ``I make things more complicated'' by connecting events with charities, he said. The Women's Rape Crisis Center, for example, gets about $20,000 from the annual Mardi Gras parade, which Magic Hat created in the mid-1990s. Not all of Newman's ventures have been a success. But he said he learns lessons--the best lessons--from the failures. He and a friend created a yacht time-sharing company, Highland International in Hanksville, in the late 1970s. Highland International never generated any revenue. Newman and his partner burned through $300,000 of seed money in about 18 months. Reflecting on the business misfire, Newman said he should have purchased one boat with the funds, instead of trying to leverage it into millions. Lesson learned: proceed slowly. Another one of Newman's business mistakes was Magic Hat's Ale of the Living Dead, a garlic beer. One of the bottles sits on Newman's desk. The beer, he said, was often returned as ``undrinkable.'' The lesson with the garlic beer: ``Don't let me drive recipe creation.'' The acquisition of Pyramid gives Magic Hat the potential to place its bottles of brew on shelves in many more states. Magic Hat is sold in 18 states now, mostly on the East Coast. Pyramid's beers are sold in 28 states. Newman said they had no choice but to expand Magic Hat because the company ``had already passed through the overhead level where small could work.'' Newman said the idea for Magic Hat emerged in 1993 with co- founder Bob Johnson. The next year the pair were making beer on Flynn Avenue in Burlington. After three years, Magic Hat moved to a larger operation in South Burlington. When Magic Hat left Flynn Avenue, 6,000 barrels were being brewed a year. This year, Magic Hat will brew about 130,000 barrels at the South Burlington location, Newman said. A barrel is 31 gallons. Not including brew pubs, there are 300 to 400 microbreweries in the U.S. fighting for a 5 percent share of the beer market, Newman said. ``In order to be a survivor, we think you have to get bigger. You can't stay small,'' he said. Perhaps, recalling the lessons learned from his failed yacht time-share company decades ago, when he learned to ``start small and grow,'' Newman said Magic Hat's expansion ``will be slow and methodical.'' ____________________" CREC-2008-12-12-pt1-PgS10974,2008-12-12,110,2,,,"RECESS UNTIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2008, AT 11 A.M.",SENATE,SENATE,SRECESS,S10974,S10974,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10974,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 187 (Friday, December 12, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10974] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] RECESS UNTIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2008, AT 11 A.M. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2008. Thereupon, the Senate, at 10 and 54 seconds a.m., recessed until Tuesday, December 16, 2008, at 11 a.m." CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgD1320,2008-12-11,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCHAMBER,D1320,D1321,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""SCONRES"", ""number"": ""107""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HCONRES"", ""number"": ""440""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""SRES"", ""number"": ""664""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""SRES"", ""number"": ""710""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""SRES"", ""number"": ""728""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""S"", ""number"": ""3501""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""S"", ""number"": ""3732""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""S"", ""number"": ""3741""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""7005""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""7327""}]",154 Cong. Rec. D1320,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Pages D1320-D1321] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Thursday, December 11, 2008 [[Page D1320]] Daily Digest Senate Chamber Action Routine Proceedings, pages S10889-S10958 Measures Introduced: Ten bills and one resolution were introduced, as follows: S. 3732-3741, and S. Con. Res. 107. Page S10946 Measures Reported: Report to accompany S. 3501, to ensure that Congress is notified when the Department of Justice determines that the Executive Branch is not bound by a statute. (S. Rept. No. 110-528) Page S10946 Measures Passed: Technical Corrections: Senate passed H.R. 7327, to make technical corrections related to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, clearing the measure for the President. Pages S10914-15 United States Capitol Complex Tours: Senate agreed to S. Con. Res. 107, expressing the sense of Congress regarding the rights of Members of Congress (or any employee of a Member of Congress authorized by that member) to lead tours of the United States Capitol complex. Page S10957 Union Station, Washington, D.C. Centennial: Committee on Environment and Public Works was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 664, celebrating the centennial of Union Station in Washington, District of Columbia, and the resolution was then agreed to. Page S10957 National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week: Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 710, designating the week of February 2 through February 6, 2009, as ``National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week'', and the resolution was then agreed to. Pages S10957-58 National Mentoring Month: Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 728, designating January 2009 as ``National Mentoring Month'', and the resolution was then agreed to. Pages S10957-58 Measures Considered: Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act--Cloture: Senate continued consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 7005, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide alternative minimum tax relief for individuals for 2008. Page S10931 During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action: By 52 yeas to 35 nays (Vote No. 215), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected the motion to close further debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. Page S10931 Senator Reid entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. Page S10931 Appointments: Congressional Award Board: The Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, pursuant to Public Law 96-114, as amended, appointed the following individual to the Congressional Award Board: Major General Robert Newman of Virginia. Page S10958 Authorizing Leadership to Make Appointments--Agreement: A unanimous- consent agreement was reached providing that, notwithstanding the recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President Pro Tempore, and the Majority and Minority Leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate. Page S10958 Pro Forma Sessions--Agreement: A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that Senate meet in pro forma sessions with no business conducted on the following days and times: Friday, December 12 at 10 a.m.; Tuesday, December 16 at 11 a.m.; Friday, December 19 at 10 a.m.; Tuesday, December 23 at 11 a.m.; Friday, December 26 at 11 a.m.; Tuesday, December 30 at 10:30 a.m.; and Friday, January 2 at 10 a.m.; and that at the close of the pro forma session on Friday, January 2, Senate stand adjourned sine die under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 440. Page S10958 [[Page D1321]] Nomination Received: Senate received the following nomination: Matthew W. Friedrich, of Texas, to be an Assistant Attorney General. Page S10958 Messages from the House: Pages S10944-45 Executive Communications: Pages S10945-46 Additional Cosponsors: Page S10947 Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions: Pages S10947-51 Additional Statements: Pages S10943-44 Amendments Submitted: Pages S10951-57 Authorities for Committees to Meet: Page S10957 Record Votes: One record vote was taken today. (Total--215) Page S10931 Recess: Senate convened at 10 a.m. and recessed at 11:50 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Friday, December 12, 2008. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S10958.)" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgD1321-2,2008-12-11,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House of Representatives,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCHAMBER,D1321,D1321,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HCONRES"", ""number"": ""440""}]",154 Cong. Rec. D1321,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1321] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] House of Representatives Chamber Action The House was not in session today. The House is scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. on Saturday, January, 3, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 440." CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgD1321-3,2008-12-11,110,2,,,Daily Digest/House Committee Meetings,HOUSE,DAILYDIGEST,DDHCMEETINGS,D1321,D1321,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1321,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1321] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings STATES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES--IMPACT OF RECESSION Committee on Appropriations: Held a hearing on the Impact of Recession on States and Local Communities. Testimony was heard from the following Governors: Jon Corzine, New Jersey; Jim Doyle, Wisconsin; and Jim Douglas, Vermont; and public witnesses. OVERSIGHT--ADMINISTRATION'S LAST-MINUTE RULEMAKINGS Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming: Held a hearing entitled ``Approaching Midnight: Oversight of the Bush Administration's Last-Minute Rulemakings.'' Testimony was heard from public witnesses." CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgD1321-4,2008-12-11,110,2,,,Daily Digest/COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR 2008-12-12,,DAILYDIGEST,DDCOMMITTEEMEETINGS,D1321,D1321,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1321,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1321] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2008 (Committee meetings are open unless otherwise indicated) Senate No meetings/hearings scheduled. House No committee meetings are scheduled." CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgD1321-5,2008-12-11,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Next Meeting of the SENATE + Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES + Other End Matter,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDENDMATTER,D1321,D1322,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1321,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Pages D1321-D1322] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (USPS 087�09390). The Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, D.C. The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported by the Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directions of the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting very infrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed one time. Public access to the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user. The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from the beginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available through GPO Access at www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess. Customers can also access this information with WAIS client software, via telnet at swais.access.gpo.gov, or dial-in using communications software and a modem at 202�09512�091661. Questions or comments regarding this database or GPO Access can be directed to the GPO Access User Support Team at: E-Mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov; Phone 1�09888�09293�096498 (toll-free), 202�09512�091530 (D.C. area); Fax: 202�09512�091262. The Team's hours of availability are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, except Federal holidays. The Congressional Record paper and 24x microfiche edition will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $252.00 for six months, $503.00 per year, or purchased as follows: less than 200 pages, $10.50; between 200 and 400 pages, $21.00; greater than 400 pages, $31.50, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $146.00 per year, or purchased for $3.00 per issue payable in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. To place an order for any of these products, visit the U.S. Government Online Bookstore at: bookstore.gpo.gov. Mail orders to: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250�097954, or phone orders to 866�09512�091800 (toll free), 202�09512�091800 (D.C. area), or fax to 202�09512�092104. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, or GPO Deposit Account. Following each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents in individual parts or by sets. With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Record, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, Along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received. [[Page D1322]] _______________________________________________________________________ Next Meeting of the SENATE 10 a.m., Friday, December 12 Senate Chamber Program for Friday: Senate will meet in pro forma session. Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11 a.m., Saturday, January 3, 2009 House Chamber Program for Saturday: To be announced." CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgD1321,2008-12-11,110,2,,,Daily Digest/Senate Committee Meetings,SENATE,DAILYDIGEST,DDSCMEETINGS,D1321,D1321,,,154 Cong. Rec. D1321,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Daily Digest] [Page D1321] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Committee Meetings (Committees not listed did not meet) WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROLIFERATION AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REPORT Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: Committee concluded a hearing to examine a report from the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, after receiving testimony from former Senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent, Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, and former Representative Tim Roemer, and Robin Cleveland, each a Commissioner, all of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism." CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgH-FrontMatter,2008-12-11,110,2,,,House of Representatives,HOUSE,HOUSE,FRONTMATTER,H10977,H10977,,,154 Cong. Rec. H10977,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [House] [Page H10977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2008 No. 186" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgH10977-2,2008-12-11,110,2,,,"OMISSION FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008, AT PAGE 10870",HOUSE,HOUSE,ALLOTHER,H10977,H10977,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""S"", ""number"": ""602""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""S"", ""number"": ""1193""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""2040""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""5714""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""6867""}]",154 Cong. Rec. H10977,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [House] [Page H10977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] OMISSION FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008, AT PAGE 10870 ______ ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 4 of rule I, the following enrolled bills were signed by the Speaker on Thursday, November 20, 2008: H.R. 5714, to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration of the establishment of the United States Army in 1775, to honor the American soldier of both today and yesterday, in wartime and in peace, and to commemorate the traditions, history, and heritage of the United States Army and its role in American society, from the colonial period to today. H.R. 6867, to provide for additional emergency unemployment compensation. S. 602, an act to develop the next generation of parental control technology. S. 1193, an act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust two parcels of Federal land for the benefit of certain Indian pueblos in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. On Friday, November 21, 2008: H.R. 2040, to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the semicentennial of the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgH10977-3,2008-12-11,110,2,,,"OMISSION FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008, AT PAGE H10957",HOUSE,HOUSE,ALLOTHER,H10977,H10977,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""2040""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""5714""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""6867""}]",154 Cong. Rec. H10977,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [House] [Page H10977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] OMISSION FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008, AT PAGE H10957 ______ ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED Ms. Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker on Thursday, November 20, 2008: H.R. 5714. An act to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration of the establishment of the United States Army in 1775, to honor the American soldier of both today and yesterday, in wartime and in peace, and to commemorate the traditions, history, and heritage of the United States Army and its role in American society, from the Colonial period to today. H.R. 6867. An act to provide for additional emergency unemployment compensation. On Friday, November 21, 2008: H.R. 2040. An act to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the semicentennial of the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgH10977-4,2008-12-11,110,2,,,SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED,HOUSE,HOUSE,ENROLLEDSIGNED,H10977,H10977,,"[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""S"", ""number"": ""602""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""S"", ""number"": ""1193""}]",154 Cong. Rec. H10977,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [House] [Page H10977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED The Speaker announced her signature to enrolled bills of the Senate of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker on Thursday, November 20, 2008: S. 602. An act to develop the next generation of parental control technology. S. 1193. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust 2 parcels of Federal land for the benefit of certain Indian Pueblos in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes." CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgH10977,2008-12-11,110,2,,,House of Representatives,HOUSE,HOUSE,ALLOTHER,H10977,H10977,,,154 Cong. Rec. H10977,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [House] [Page H10977] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [[Page H10977]] House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 11 a.m. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS-FrontMatter-5,2008-12-11,110,2,,,Senate,SENATE,SENATE,FRONTMATTER,S10889,S10889,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10889,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10889] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] S E N A T E Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2008 No. 186" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10889-2,2008-12-11,110,2,,,prayer,SENATE,SENATE,PRAYER,S10889,S10889,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10889,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10889] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] prayer The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer: Let us pray. Lord God, You open to us horizons of hope through faith's resources. Let Your grace undergird our Senators' lives, as You fill their days with a knowledge of Your will. Guide them to solutions that best honor You, as they find in You a resource for every need. Deepen their desire to please You, opening to them new opportunities to obey Your commands. Strengthen their worthy desires and be for them a shelter in the storm. May they grow in grace and in knowledge of You. We pray in Your strong Name. Amen. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10889-3,2008-12-11,110,2,,,PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE,SENATE,SENATE,PLEDGE,S10889,S10889,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10889,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10889] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Honorable Mark L. Pryor led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10889-4,2008-12-11,110,2,,,APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10889,S10889,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10889,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10889] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd). The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter: U.S. Senate, President pro tempore, Washington, DC, December 11, 2008. To the Senate: Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable Mark L. Pryor, a Senator from the State of Arkansas, to perform the duties of the Chair. Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore. Mr. PRYOR thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10889-5,2008-12-11,110,2,,,RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10889,S10889,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10889,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10889] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10889-6,2008-12-11,110,2,,,SCHEDULE,SENATE,SENATE,SSCHEDULE,S10889,S10890,"[{""name"": ""Harry Reid"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Bob Corker"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]","[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""7005""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""7005""}]",154 Cong. Rec. S10889,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10889-S10890] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] SCHEDULE Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 7005, the legislative vehicle for the auto industry's financing and restructuring. Rollcall votes are possible during today's session in the Senate. When we left here a few weeks ago, the decision was made that there would be 1 week for the automobile industry to make presentations to the two committees of jurisdiction, the House and the Senate Banking Committees, to determine what would take place during the following week. That was last week, and hearings were held in both committees, and evidence, in fact, was taken. There have been weeks and weeks of work put into coming up with a piece of legislation on which we can vote. That matter is before the Senate in H.R. 7005. I have had calls from a number of Senators today--frankly, mostly Republican Senators--telling me that they have the solution to all of the problems of the auto industry; they need a few amendments. A few amendments. We have done our very best to include everyone who wants any input into this legislation. The White House, President Bush and his people have been heavily involved in this legislation. This is, in effect, the White House's legislation. There was a decision made that the minority would not participate in the preparing of this legislation. But the White House was heavily involved. Negotiations took place over days between Chairman Frank and Chairman Dodd and the White House, and we now have a piece of legislation. Some have asked: Well, what we want is to set up a procedure where we have lots of amendments, and then we will ultimately vote on the final version. I think it is only fair that if the minority, the Republicans, want to have a better bill, then they should offer an alternative. I invite them to do it. The House passed a bill last night. It would be my suggestion that we perhaps have a vote on the substitute or the alternative the Republicans would put forward, vote on the House bill, vote on the Senate bill. If there is no agreement that can be reached on that, we have danced this tune long enough. What we will do, we can have a motion to proceed to this tomorrow, and if the Republicans want to come and say, well, you know, you have not allowed us any opportunity to offer amendments--that is what has taken place for the last 2 years, and look what it got the Republicans: lost seven or eight Senate seats, lost the Presidency. We want to legislate, and we are doing the very best we can to do that. I have reached out to my Republican colleagues. As soon as the elections were over, I called a number of Republicans and said: We want to work with you. We cannot continue doing what we have done in the past. But we are right back where we have been for 2 years, the same place we have been for 2 years. So, again, I suggest that if the Republicans have an alternative, let them [[Page S10890]] offer that. It would be very easy to do. We could vote on a Republican alternative, we would have a vote on the White House proposal now before the Senate, and we would vote on the bill that passed the House and leave here. If that is not something the Republicans choose to do, then we will vote tomorrow on a motion to proceed to the bill that has been prepared, drafted, and had input on by the two committees and the White House. If we are not allowed to proceed to that, then we, in fact, will be through with this, as we have been through with numerous pieces of legislation through the past year. So, again, I invite the Republicans, if they have an alternative, to put it forward. They have had ample opportunity to do that. Again, I have received a number of phone calls from Republicans today saying: I have just the thing that needs to be done to make this a great piece of legislation. Well, I would hope they would be ready to do that. If not, we will have a vote tomorrow on a motion to proceed to H.R. 7005. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10889,2008-12-11,110,2,,,Senate,SENATE,SENATE,CALLTOORDER,S10889,S10889,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10889,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10889] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [[Page S10889]] Senate (Legislative day of Wednesday, December 10, 2008) The Senate met at 10 a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the Honorable Mark L. Pryor, a Senator from the State of Arkansas. ______" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10890-2,2008-12-11,110,2,,,MORNING BUSINESS,SENATE,SENATE,SMBUSINESS,S10890,S10890,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10890,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10890] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] MORNING BUSINESS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10890-3,2008-12-11,110,2,,,ORDER OF PROCEDURE,SENATE,SENATE,SORDER,S10890,S10890,"[{""name"": ""Bob Corker"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""James M. Inhofe"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10890,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10890] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] ORDER OF PROCEDURE Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, my understanding was that if possible--I made some calls earlier today that that may be waived and that I go up to 25 minutes. Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee be given the amount of time he wants, and immediately following that, that I would be recognized for such time as I shall consume. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Oklahoma have a sense for how much time that will be? Mr. INHOFE. About 15 minutes. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10890-4,2008-12-11,110,2,,,AUTOMOBILE CRISIS,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10890,S10894,"[{""name"": ""Bob Corker"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Johnny Isakson"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""James M. Inhofe"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""John Ensign"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Benjamin L. Cardin"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]","[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""S"", ""number"": ""3683""}]",154 Cong. Rec. S10890,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10890-S10894] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] AUTOMOBILE CRISIS Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about where we are in this auto bailout. In essence, it is show time here. A bill came over from the House last night. It is the end of the year. There is an impending crisis we are dealing with here in the country. So today we will be debating that and hopefully in the next few days take a vote. I spent a lot of time in the committee talking with certain and various parties involved. I spent a lot of time outside the committee doing the same thing. There is no doubt we are going through an economic time that is very difficult for the auto industry. It is also difficult for businesses and families all across this country as they try to make their budgets work out. As we have looked at this issue, I know there has been a lot of negotiation that has taken place between the White House and House Democrats. I really think the product that has been developed is a very poor product. I don't blame that on my Democratic colleagues who negotiated because the White House is actually at a point where they are looking for the next flight out of town on January 20. Basically, they want to kick the can down the road and let some other administration and some other Congress deal with this issue. All of us are going to be here next year. It is our responsibility to deal with this issue in a professional and a competent manner and actually solve the problem. I say to my colleagues on both the left and right, on the Democratic and Republican sides, we have a historic opportunity to actually solve this problem. The solution is very simple. I have looked at this legislation that has come over. It is similar to so many things we do around here. It is akin to a three-humped camel. You couldn't make it more ineffective and more complicated. We have put in place a czar. It seems like with everything we do around here, we try to find a person who can save us from the crisis that is happening. We did the same with the financial rescue package not long ago. I have looked at the actual responsibilities of this czar. I said yesterday I had a banking staff person who actually could fulfill those responsibilities. She read that in the paper this morning and came in and said she is overqualified, that in essence this is not something she would want to take on. I think we can use some help, certainly, from the outside, and there may be a role for somebody such as this. But what we are looking at is a fairly simple transaction. It is a lot of money, a fairly simple transaction. Here is what we have. We have three companies. Two of the companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. As a matter of fact, I would say two of the companies are in bankruptcy. I know Chrysler, today, is meeting with their supplier group. I know if they don't win concessions today, they are in great trouble. General Motors has told us if they don't receive funding by the end of this year, they will have to file bankruptcy. I believe that. We have a lot of Republicans who would like to see that happen, would like to see chapter 11 occur and to see them go through the laws that exist for reorganization in a way that is clean and allow them to move ahead in a financially stable way. As a matter of fact, many Republicans would actually agree to something called debtor-in- possession financing after that occurred so these companies could evolve. There are people on the other side of the aisle who have decided that is a cost that is too great to bear. I started out along the path that I believed the best way for us to solve the problem was to actually cause these companies to go through reorganization and any role we might play as the Federal Government would be in the way of debtor-in-possession financing. After listening to the testimony and after talking to people all across the country who are involved, I do believe the supply chain is in great stress. They are undercapitalized. The three companies have already been utilizing the supplier chain for financing by paying late and carrying payments for lengths of time. I do think the supply chain is fragile. What I have tried to do is figure out a way to create a piece of legislation that is elegant, simple, actually solves the problem, and causes these companies to be in great shape and for us to be able to move ahead and know that has been done. There are a lot of times I have heard people say: We are from the Government, and we are here to help you. When people hear that, they usually run for the hills. This is a case where if we will take a moment, we can actually do something that is great for these companies. We have a big stick. These companies cannot get financing anyplace except from the Federal Government. So we have an opportunity to sort of thread the needle in a simple way and cause these companies to be successful. Let me say, other than the economic issues, these companies have three major issues. Each one of them is different. We know that basically we are talking about General Motors here. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for General Motors. Chrysler would not be here if it weren't for that. They are in serious trouble but wouldn't have the clout to be able to talk to us in this way. Ford has money today because of refinancing they did back in 2006. They are not even part of the discussion today. They might be down the road, but today they are financially viable, although burning cash at a rate that is almost equal to that of General Motors. We are talking--to make this clear to people-- [[Page S10891]] about three entities we need to talk to: General Motors, Cerberus or Chrysler, and the UAW. There are three things that are basically causing these companies difficulty. One is the capital structure. The debt these companies have is not sustainable. It doesn't matter how much money we were to put into General Motors; with the $62 billion in debt they have today, there is no way they can sustain their company. They cannot. GM only has a market cap today of around $2 billion. Toyota has a market cap of $130 billion. BMW has a market cap of $14 billion. So this is a company that has a huge amount of debt and very little value. Chrysler probably has no value. They are privately held. So we have two companies we need to deal with in a similar way, as it turns out. Let me lay something out. Right now the capital structure in both places is too high. Cerberus and Chrysler can't withstand its debt. GM cannot withstand its debt. Secondly, the labor costs are out of line. I know there is a lot of talking about the UAW. Candidly, I will admit, in some cases they get a bad rap. A lot of the people who are my friends would not like me saying that, but in some cases they actually get a bad rap as to the way the comparisons go. The third issue is the dealership issue. I don't think we can deal with that today. There are two issues we can deal with in this loan and solve the problem. One is the capital structure. The other is the labor issue. Here is what I propose. We will be putting this forward, as Senator Reid mentioned. We have some alternative legislation. I hope it is something both Democrats and Republicans can embrace. It is very simple. Let's go ahead and fund the money. Let's fund the money that has been requested. To Republicans, that is like debtor-in-possession financing anyway because these companies are basically bankrupt. To Democrats, the funding is in place to cause these companies to be whole. Let's go ahead and fund the request that has taken place. Let's have three covenants. We can do this with a very short bill which we drafted. The first covenant is that by March 15, the outstanding indebtedness at the two companies that are going to apply for this has to be reduced by two-thirds or the companies have to file for bankruptcy on March 15. That gives the companies, the bondholders, which we have talked to on the phone, plenty of incentive to make sure the debt is reduced by two-thirds so these companies have a capital structure that allows them to go forward. This is the only way they will be successful. We have had plenty of people testify that if we put our money on top of the $62 billion in debt GM has, there is no way they can be successful, even if we are selling 20 million cars a year. Today, we know, we are selling at a 10 million rate. That is No. 1. Give them the money. If by March 15 they haven't reduced their capital structure in that regard--and we have talked to people on all sides who believe this can happen, but it can only happen with the stick of Government, meaning we are going to force them into bankruptcy if they don't do it. That is the first covenant. The second covenant is, I have listened to Mr. Gettelfinger's testimony and talked to him on the phone this morning. He says the only way the UAW can make concessions is if they see the bondholders have done so first. This legislation makes that happen by March 15. So, secondly, after the UAW has seen that the bondholders have taken a ``haircut,'' a word that is used around here a lot, they have to do two things: No. 1, they have to convert half the VEBA obligation, the Voluntary Employee Benefit Association obligations. They have to convert half those to equity. If the company goes bankrupt, these future payments are never going to happen anyway. Again, that reduces the debt at GM by another $10.5 billion, and it gives the UAW equity in a company that actually has value now because the debt by the bondholders has been reduced. That is the second covenant--very simple. The third action they have to take is at that same public meeting where they take a vote, they have to agree to have a contract in place that puts them in parity with companies such as Toyota and Nissan and Volkswagen and other companies here. Before everybody goes crazy over that, that is as certified by the Secretary of Labor. That is not something we prescribe. I realize there will be subtleties in that. There are comparisons that have to be made. To my friends on the left, that would be a Secretary of Labor by the Obama administration who has the ability to look at the various differences and nuances to actually certify that. I have talked to Ron Gettelfinger this morning. Because of the debates we have had recently, I am probably not on his Christmas card list this year. I realize that. But he actually is talking with his leaders about this. I have talked to the COO at General Motors last night and this morning. He was the former chief financial officer. He agrees this will work. This gives the stick to the Government to make them have to do the things they need to do to actually cram down their bondholders. I have heard a lot about Main Street and Wall Street. For those people who want to take an ounce or a pound of flesh from Wall Street, those are mostly the people who own these bonds. They will be taking this huge haircut, two-thirds. In GM's case, it is about $20 billion that would be converted to equity and take away a face amount of debt. I plan to be here all day today. I would like to take 30 minutes off from 12:30 to 1 to give a talk someplace. But I would ask any Democrat, any Republican to please come down to the floor, call me, e-mail me, tell me why we couldn't put in place these three covenants which are very reasonable. They are the only actions that can happen in real time to make these companies successful. Let's pass a bill that causes these companies to be strong, gives them the money to breathe. By the way, we had somebody testify the other day in Banking who said that if we give money to these companies in the form they are in today, we will end up giving $75 to $125 billion. I talked to the President of GM this morning. He says if we can make this happen--of course, the bondholders say we can, he says we can--that they will be limited in their request to only what they have asked for. They do not believe any more U.S. dollars will be required. I ask my colleagues, why would we not take a simple piece of legislation, put it in place. It acts like debtor-in-possession financing. It does what we need to do to make sure the bondholders and the UAW themselves do the things they need to do to make the company whole. Management is already hamstrung by the bill. It lays out the items management must forgo for these loans to be in place. Let's leave here having done something that actually causes these companies to be healthy, vibrant, able to go into the future in a strong way for the first time in 30 years. We can do something great today, if we will only sit down and do it. I ask my colleagues to do one other thing. We have tried to make this so complicated. There are three groups each of you can call to see if this will work. Call Chrysler, call General Motors, call the UAW and ask them if this will work. If there is a sentence we need to change, a comma we need to put in place, let's do it. But it is very simple. We have drafted a bill as if we are saving the world. We are talking about three companies alone, actually two companies today alone and three covenants can solve this problem, put them on a solid foundation, move them ahead. We will have done the right thing for the American taxpayers. We will have done the right thing for these companies, and we will have acted responsibly together in concert, doing something that, again, is right for our country. Mr. President, thank you for the great length of time. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come down and tell me why this will not work. Thank you very much. I yield the floor. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield for a question through the Chair? Mr. CORKER. Yes. Mr. ISAKSON. First of all, Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator for all the work he has done on this issue over the last 2 months. But I [[Page S10892]] have one question. Is it not true that almost all those conditions in those three conditions you outlined were in whole or in part verbally contemplated by the automakers in terms of what it is going to take for them to come back and be profitable in the first place? Mr. CORKER. No question. I say to the Senator from Georgia, they have come in our offices and actually--they have advisers. Their financial advisers have told them that they need for us to craft this legislation this way so they have the hammer they need to make the bondholders reduce their debt so they can be healthy. Without this kind of hammer, nothing is going to happen. Look, you have read this bill. This bill says they have to have a plan to show a net present value in place by March 31--a plan. It does not say when it has to be accomplished. We can solve this problem so simply for them, for the United Auto Workers, for the State of Michigan. By the way, for the record, I want to say I have a General Motors plant in my State. It is very important. It is modern. It has been invested in. We have a Nissan plant, and we have a Volkswagen plant coming. The automobile industry is very important to me, as I know it is to you, I say to the Senator from Georgia. I thank him for that question. Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, I thank you for your hard work. Mr. President, I yield back. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from Tennessee for all his labors and what he has been through. Quite frankly, I came back from the Horn of Africa and Afghanistan on Saturday or Sunday-- anyway, over the weekend--and when I saw all this stuff coming up, I knew from my experience in the Senate that nothing was going to happen for a few days, so I did not stay and work hard like my friend from Tennessee. I went back to Oklahoma. I do that now and then just to talk to normal people, to hear what these people have to say, as opposed to the bureaucrats and the stuff we get in Washington. In a way, it is a little bit humorous. We went through the $700 billion bailout. I can remember everybody talking about Secretary Paulson coming down and saying: The world is going to come to an end if we do not do this. He said: We are going to have to do it. Well, we did some calculations, and I do not think most of the American people realize when we talk about these numbers--whether it is $14 billion or $700 billion--how much it really is. If you did your own math when this stuff comes up--this is what I always do--there are 139 million families in America who file tax returns. If you take the 139 million families and divide that number into $700 billion, that is $5,000 a family. Now we are talking about something that is serious. When I tell people in Oklahoma that, that gets their attention. So here we are talking about $14 billion right now. Nobody seemed to care before, and we just passed that matter by a huge margin: 75 to 24. I was one of the 24 who voted against the $700 billion bailout. But we passed it by that huge margin, more than 2 to 1. It is something that is so much bigger than the $14 billion we are talking about now. We are making a big issue about the $14 billion. Where was all the concern and outrage when we were talking about $700 billion? So we watched it come along, and we saw that we gave the Secretary of the Treasury all the money that he was asking for. Then we find out that as to what he was going to use the money for, it was not used for that at all. He said, and I heard it myself--everyone in here heard it: the Democrats heard it; the Republicans heard it--if we don't have this $700 billion to buy out troubled assets, this whole country is going to go down--this doom and gloom. Once he got it, he did not do it. He did not come to us and say: Well, there is a different plan now. We are going to use it in some other way because I don't think this is going to work. So that got my attention. I decided at that time: Well, if they are going to go ahead and give him this $700 billion, let's see what there is in that law that we passed that might be to the benefit of people who are concerned about this issue. I saw that it was broken into two parts. The first $350 billion pretty much was given to him to use at his discretion, which he did. He did not come to us and say he was going to use it in a different way. He just went ahead and did it. It is the first time in the history of America that anything close to $350 billion was spent in such a way. Then we have in the law that was passed a provision that says if he needs the other $350 billion, he can go ahead and do that, and if there is not an objection--as a matter of fact, if he does this, and does this when we are out of session, we would be helpless to try to do anything to stop it. So I introduced a bill. It is S. 3683. It is not going to be considered. I am not a member of the club, so that is not going to come up, although we have made an effort and we actually have some Democrats on the bill. That is something that uses the rules that are out there and says we can change the second $350 billion so it will take a positive act of Congress to allow them to access the second $350 billion. Now, let's quickly jump back to the current issue. I wanted to put that in perspective because when we talk about $14 billion, compared to $700 billion, I just wish there was that much outrage when we were making that commitment. So here we are talking about one unelected bureaucrat to be known as the car czar--get ready for the car czar. We have only had one good czar in the history of America that I know of, and that was Bill Bennett when he was the drug czar. However, he was not given a blank check to spend a whole bunch of money. He is just a brilliant guy who was going to try to stop some of the stupid things we were doing in this country. That was back in the 1980s when the drug problem first surfaced as a major problem. He did a great job. I draw him out as an exception when I talk about czars. Now we are talking about a car czar. This guy is going to have the same bureaucratic power that Secretary Paulson had during the time he pulled off this $700 billion bailout. Now, this bill makes the U.S. Government, the taxpayers, part owners of these companies. This $14 billion bill is one that is going to surface probably today. People are talking about, and the leader talked about, maybe we will go all the way through the weekend if we do not get something done. But the instrument that came over from the House yesterday to the Senate is most likely what we are going to be considering, and it is one that makes the Government part owners of these companies. The car czar does not have any specific instructions, such as renegotiating some of the union contracts and some of the things that will have to be done. I looked at this early on, and I thought, as undesirable as bankruptcy is, I do not know of any other way you can actually force the tough negotiations that will have to take place. It has to be management and labor. It is not just labor; it is not just management. There has been mismanagement. But they would have to satisfy the courts that we have a system that will work. I read an article in the New York Times from the middle of November, and it was entitled ``A British Lesson on Auto Bailouts.'' It discussed the British treatment of the Leyland automobile in the 1970s and 1980s. The article reported that the British Government ultimately spent-- well, transferring this or putting this in U.S. dollars--they spent $16.5 billion--that is comparable to what we are talking about now--to bailout the British automobile company called Leyland. The article quoted a top official from the Thatcher government, which reluctantly but ultimately backed the bailout. He said: I'm not telling the U.S. what to do, but the lesson of the British experience is don't throw good money after bad. British Leyland carried on for a few more years, but they are not there now, are they? No, Mr. President, they are not. They are bankrupt after burning through the taxpayers' bailout dollars. Now, why we now believe Government bailouts and Government ownership of shares of these companies is going to be a successful venture without a clear idea of what these companies would do to significantly alter their business models, and at least until well into next year--I do not [[Page S10893]] know why we think this because it has not happened. It has not happened successfully before. In the New York Times, just a few days ago, Jeffrey Garten, who served as Under Secretary of Commerce during the Clinton administration, and who is now a professor at Yale University, was quoted as saying this: We're at this moment in history, in which the Chinese are touting that their system is better than ours with their mix of capitalism and state control and our response, it looks like, is to begin replicating what they've been doing. Now, that is what he says we are doing: replicating now what the Chinese have been doing. I have to say this: I am very much concerned about the Chinese. I have spent quite a bit of time in Africa and other parts of the world. But in Africa, the Chinese, I think, pose the greatest threat to us. It is an economic threat as well as a military threat. But, nonetheless, does that mean we should be doing what they are doing? And we are replicating their system, according to Jeffrey Garten. I cannot support Congress using taxpayer dollars to bail out yet another industry. I can remember when we were talking about this a few weeks ago with the $700 billion bailout. We were talking about this as if this were something that was going to be a one-shot deal. I said, standing on this Senate floor, that as soon as this goes through, they are going to start lining up. I said: You are going to get not just the bankers, you are going to get the auto dealers and the airlines and everybody else out there saying, well, if this is what is out there, bail me out, too. I want to be bailed out. So this is what is happening. We are now looking at one unelected bureaucrat administering a brandnew Government program with taxpayer dollars buying ownership in an industry. I think we have heard this one before. I know the American people have heard this before also. This is exactly what Secretary Paulson did. I am talking about the massive $700 billion financial bailout legislation. Let's keep in mind, we are talking about an amount that is far less than that. We are talking about $14 billion. I remember talking on the Senate floor when it looked as though we had $350 billion that was not going to be used. In fact, Secretary Paulson said--this was interesting--right before we went into recess, Secretary Paulson said: We have no intentions of using, no reason to use the other $350 billion. We have a reserve that we have not spent yet of about $15 billion. I responded and said: Well, if you do not have any intentions of using it, let's go ahead and change the system so you cannot use it. I do not want to have us adjourn and find out: Oh, I think we will use another $350 billion, which is comparable to about $2,500 per family filing a tax return. Well, the Congress gave Secretary Paulson the $700 billion in two installments, and we all know how that second installment is. I have authored two bills. One of them is S. 3683, sponsored by, of all people, Bernie Sanders, the one who is a self-proclaimed socialist, a guy who is on the opposite end of the philosophic specter from me. Yet he knows this is something that is wise: to have accountability for the $350 billion. I do not have her name on here, but I think Senator Mikulski might also have been on here because I was on the Senate floor with her, and she said it would be a good idea. We have Senators Barrasso, Wicker, DeMint, Roberts, and Vitter. This legislation would freeze the unexpended expenditures of the original $350 billion and require an affirmative vote--is that asking too much--an affirmative vote to access the remaining $350 billion. It is automatic now. That is all we are asking for. So I think that as we talk today--and, hopefully, this will be over tonight; I anticipate that it will because it goes on and on and on, and nobody, right before Christmas, wants to be working over the weekend when it looks like nothing meaningful is going to happen--let's bring it on, bring on the bill. Let's have a vote on it. Let's get it over with today, and, hopefully, we can reject it. think a lot of Members in this body, some of those who supported the $700 billion bailout, have a chance at redemption right now by opposing this legislation. So, once again, let me just put it back in perspective. I came back from Afghanistan on the weekend and I saw the discussion take place, and I had an idea, through the experience I have on the Senate floor, that nothing was going to happen for the next 2 or 3 days, so I went back to Oklahoma and talked to real people. By the way, I have to say this: I talked to a lot of dealers in Oklahoma about the idea of a car czar, and because of the prospect of a Washington bureaucrat telling the car manufacturers how to run their businesses and what kind of cars to make, it did not give them hope for the future. These people were opposed to it. I know a lot of the car dealers are for this. They are concerned about keeping the parts inventories and all of that, but I look at this, and I don't see any other way it can happen. By the way, I would say concerning this bailout bill, I don't think they did anything to address the California waiver. This is something that has to be done if they are really sincere about this bill that came over from the House. Someone can correct me if they have corrected the problems of the California waiver; I don't think they have. Right now, there is litigation out there, where California wants to be able to determine what its tailpipe restrictions are. It is in the courts right now, but if they are successful, then that would mean we have 50 States that can determine what their emission requirements are in their State. You talk about one factor driving up the price of cars, that would be it. Again, I don't know for sure what all is in this thing from the House, but I do know this: The basic bill is the same bill that we had before. It is based on a concept that the bureaucracy can run the free enterprise system better than the free enterprise system can, and it doesn't work. Let's solve the problem of the $14 billion, but let's get some people to join in with me on the Senate bill that will allow us to require an affirmative vote for the second $350 billion. Let's put that in perspective: $350 billion as opposed to $14 billion. I think it deserves the attention of the Members of the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the possible bailout of the Big 3 automobile manufacturers. General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford have come before this Congress asking for tens of billions of dollars from the taxpayers. This bailout, however, raises a number of questions that concern me greatly. The economy of the United States is rooted in free-market principles. These principles, coupled with our Nation's entrepreneurial spirit, helped America become the richest and most innovative country in the world. Even though our economy is struggling right now, we cannot abandon those principles. American automobile company executives have made many poor decisions over the past few decades. Those decisions combined with a poor economy, have put them in a desperate situation, particularly General Motors. It seems to me that this is exactly why we have Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Now, when I say bankruptcy, I am not talking about liquidation. That is Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Chapter 11 bankruptcy provides struggling companies with the opportunity to restructure responsibly so that they can transform into efficient and profitable firms. Chapter 11 exists to protect both the employees and the company itself by giving them a chance to get things right. The Big 3 should not view Chapter 11 as some sort of death sentence. Instead, they should see it as the best opportunity to put themselves on the same competitive footing with companies such as Toyota and BMW. Venerable companies in America such as Macy's and Continental Airlines have filed for Chapter 11 and have emerged as stronger, more viable companies. So why should the Big 3 be treated any differently? [[Page S10894]] I know these companies would say they are somehow unique and that bankruptcy simply will not work for them. I am not so sure about that. The Big 3 worry that today's financial environment would prevent them from securing debtor-in-possession financing from the private sector. They would need such funding to keep operating through a bankruptcy proceeding. This is where the government can step in. This would ensure that automakers have the funds to complete the Chapter 11 process. The Big 3 also worry that few consumers would buy a car from a company that might not be around in a few years to stand by the car's warranty. Again, the government could step in and guarantee the warranties. After all, what is a better backup of a warranty than the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government? And if the government took these steps, wouldn't that give the Big 3 a good chance to successfully reorganize through Chapter 11 bankruptcy? The Big 3 have testified before Congress that they would require about $34 billion to avoid liquidation. They would need this help over the next year or two. Many independent analysts, however, believe that number may triple that. Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the independent estimates are closer to reality. After all, the Big 3 have time and again proven unable to adequately plan for the future. Why should we believe their projections now? With the deficit reaching $1 trillion or more next year, why aren't we having a debate over the true cost of such a bailout? We should be worried about the U.S. taxpayer. In this legislation, there has been talk about creating a ``car czar'' to oversee any restructuring that would accompany a bailout. This czar, however, would not have nearly the same sort of powers a bankruptcy court judge would have under Chapter 11. Injecting a government bureaucrat into the process is not a serious solution. If you have been around Washington long enough, you know it is more like a serious problem. Wouldn't it be better to have an expert such as a bankruptcy court judge oversee the process? Not only would a bankruptcy judge have more tools than a car czar, but the judge would not be influenced by the political process. A bailout would invite all sorts of meddling from lawmakers to have the companies carry out their own pet policies. We should not be using this bailout as a vehicle to implement domestic social policy. Not to mention that creditors or stakeholders will just lobby Congress to make the sort of concessions that would be required of them under the bankruptcy. We see this sort of lobbying right now with the TARP program. Everyone is trying to tweak the program to benefit their own narrow self-interest. Why would we expect the auto unions or suppliers or dealers to behave any differently? I worry that politicizing the restructuring of the Big 3 would jeopardize any chances of success they may have. All this talk of government-directed restructuring also raises bigger picture questions. Why does Congress think we can succeed where so many businessmen have already failed? What sort of experience in the car- making business does this Congress have? Last I checked, none of my colleagues have a background in running a car company. And this car czar seems doomed to failure too. One government bureaucrat to oversee the reorganization of three massive companies? What track record can we point to that makes us think this will work? This strikes me as a questionable intervention by the government into the private sector. We have the government thinking it can run these businesses better than they can. Heck, we cannot even run the government. We also have the government choosing which individual companies deserve help and which do not. This is not what the Government should be doing. Government should not be picking winners or losers in the private sector. For the long-term health of the country's entrepreneurial-based economy, this could be a dangerous precedent. One of the companies asking for a bailout is Chrysler, which is owned by an investment fund known as Cerberus. Some reports indicate Cerberus may have significant asset holdings, into the billions of dollars. But it appears Cerberus has done nothing to infuse any emergency cash into Chrysler to save it. Why should the government bail out Chrysler, when its own parent company seems unwilling to offer any help? If we bail out the car companies, what does that mean for other struggling industries? The automakers are not the only ones suffering today in this bad economy. Would we have to bail out every large company in every major industry? Tourism is one of America's biggest industries and has a high employment multiplier, much like the auto industry. Hotel rooms are going empty as consumers cut back on travel. Many state economies, such as in my own State of Nevada, are hurting because of the downturn in consumer travel. Should the hotels receive a bailout? How about the newspaper industry? We know their businesses are hurting too. The Tribune Company filed for Chapter 11. Should we be bailing them out as well? Where do we draw the line? Can we even draw a line once we have given the Big 3 a bailout? The proposed automaker bailout is indicative of a big-government approach to dealing with our economy. We are in the midst of a recession, yet we have come back for a late session of Congress to talk about saving just three companies. Why aren't we considering pro-growth policies to help the larger economy? We should be considering long- term, pro-growth tax cuts rather than searching for ways to spend more of the taxpayers' money. For instance, lowering the corporate tax rate would put more money back into the hands of companies all across America. This would help companies stay afloat and to avoid cutting jobs during these difficult times. Instead, the Democrats are looking to spend money on bloated, uncompetitive automakers. As we debate whether to loan billions of dollars to the automakers, I urge my colleagues to consider all the important questions I have raised today. This issue is not as simple as answering ``how many jobs might be lost?'' or ``how much it will cost the government?'' We must also consider questions such as ``what is the Government's proper role during this economic downturn?'' ``What could be the unintended consequences of our actions?'' ``Are we setting a dangerous precedent for needless political intervention?'' ``How might this affect our ballooning deficit?'' ``Are we taking the best course of action for the long-term health of the U.S. Government?'' We would do America a disservice by approving any bailout package for the Big 3 before finding at least some consensus on these questions. Furthermore, I believe we must look more closely at Chapter 11 as a viable option for the automakers. Chapter 11 reorganization for any of the Big 3 is far from ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world nor during ideal times. We should not dismiss one of the most powerful tools available to us so readily. I hope my colleagues will think long and hard about the issues I have raised today before making any decisions about the possible bailout. If this bailout package that is before us today fails, we can rewrite the bill and do it in a way that is better for the U.S. auto manufacturing industry. American taxpayers deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10890,2008-12-11,110,2,,,RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10890,S10890,,,154 Cong. Rec. S10890,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10890] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10894,2008-12-11,110,2,,,EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10894,S10895,"[{""name"": ""Benjamin L. Cardin"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""David Vitter"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10894,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10894-S10895] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. [[Page S10895]] Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10895,2008-12-11,110,2,,,AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY CRISIS,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10895,S10901,"[{""name"": ""David Vitter"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Mitch McConnell"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Barbara Boxer"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10895,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10895-S10901] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY CRISIS Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand to again address the key issue before us that affects so many Americans, American families, and indeed all of us, through our economy: the proposed U.S. auto industry bailout. Yesterday, I stood here and announced two conclusions I was driven to reach. First, I would have to strongly oppose the bailout package in its present form because I don't think it demands the fundamental restructuring it will take for those companies to survive. Second, because of that very point, I would use every procedural tool available to block, stop, and delay that package from passing into law. I, again, reached those conclusions. I restate that commitment for one very simple, very compelling reason--because so much is at stake; because we need to get it right; because millions of individual workers and families, and indeed all of us, through our economy, will suffer the consequences of our not taking appropriate action. Again, let me be clear, I am not trying to block this package in spite of job losses that would occur if these companies went down. I am trying to block this package because of that, in light of that, because this package doesn't demand the fundamental core restructuring that is absolutely necessary for these companies to survive. This package puts those companies down a road where I believe that is unlikely to ever happen. It would throw a lot of taxpayer dollars at the problem to buy time, but it doesn't change the endgame, in my opinion. Let me also make clear, having said all that, I am not for doing nothing. I am not for going home and forgetting about this and walking away. This is a serious crisis we must address. I am for doing something, but the right thing, the right way, something that will ensure, demand the fundamental core restructuring it will take for these American companies to survive. What do I mean by that? I could support a few alternatives. Let me outline two specific alternatives that are being worked on now, that have been developed, that are being discussed by many Members that I could support. First of all, I could certainly support a strong, comprehensive alternative being developed by Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee and others. That proposal wouldn't throw $14 billion at the company before any outline of a restructuring plan is agreed to. It would say: No, we need to agree and nail down and ensure some of those fundamentals now, before any taxpayer dollars go to those companies. What are those fundamentals? Senator Corker outlines four that I agree are at the core of the issue and must be nailed down before any taxpayer dollars should go to those companies. First, his proposal would require that participating companies reduce their outstanding debt obligations by at least two-thirds by forcing the companies' bondholders to accept an equity swap or debt for debt and equity swap--in other words, for the taxpayer dollars we would be sending to those companies not to boost the take, not to boost the value of bonds for those bondholders, but for the bondholders to contribute something up front to reduce the debt of the companies. That is crucial because right now those companies, particularly GM, are drowning under unbelievable debt, and that alleged loan would be on top of that. So that is crucial. Second, we would agree up front that the companies would become more competitive by requiring that all-in labor costs and work rules would be immediately on par with other automaking companies such as Nissan, Toyota, and Honda. Obviously, a major source of the uncompetitiveness of the three U.S. automakers is their labor costs. They cannot possibly compete in this global marketplace when their costs are way, way higher, 80 percent higher than competitors such as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. This aspect of the Corker plan would ensure that is nailed down up front. Third, the legislation would require that changes in payments to the UAW VEBA accounts occur to help the companies' cash flow, specifically that at least half of any scheduled payments be made in stock. There again, it would reinforce the sense that the workers and the union have a real stake in all of this working and in those companies surviving. Fourth, any compensation, outside of customary severance pay, that goes now to workers who have been fired or laid off or furloughed would end. Again, a major cost to these U.S. companies, a major source of their uncompetitiveness is they are paying lots of money, tens of millions or billions of dollars for people not to work, for people not to work. That is a plan I could support. That is not putting the cart before the horse. That is getting things in the right order, nailing down that essential restructuring now before any taxpayer dollars go out the door. A second alternative I could support would involve a formal bankruptcy process. A lot of folks make the argument that bankruptcy is not an option, that consumers will never buy a car of a company in bankruptcy; they don't know if the warranty will be there or be good 6 months or a year from now. We can fix that problem. We can address that problem with appropriate limited Government assistance and participation in the formal bankruptcy. Specifically, I would support a plan whereby the Government could play that role in two limited, specific ways: one, backing up the warranty obligations of the companies with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government so consumers can retain that confidence and, two, providing debtor-in-possession financing if that is necessary. I believe the Government playing that crucial role, or something akin to that, can make a traditional bankruptcy process work. Again, Mr. President, I stand before you and my colleagues in the Senate--indeed, all the American people--to urge us to adopt one of those alternative paths, to urge us to think outside the tiny constricted box folks have tried to put us into and find a third way, a better way which does exist. There are folks who argue it is this or bust. Quite frankly, that is baseless fear mongering. There is another way. There is a third path and a better way. I have outlined two just in the last few minutes. Let's choose that better path. Let's do the responsible thing. Let's demand the fundamental core restructuring it will take for these companies to survive. And let's demand it and nail it down now, not throw billions of taxpayers' dollars at them simply upon the request that they sit down to begin to think about such restructuring. That is the plan before us. That is unreasonable. That is not an appropriate role for the taxpayers. But these two alternatives I outlined would be far different, would demand and ensure that core fundamental restructuring happens. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join me in voting no on the important vote tomorrow morning on the present plan and to say yes to real restructuring, fundamental core restructuring that can save a maximum number of these jobs in America. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, these are, indeed, turbulent times for the U.S. economy. Over the past several months, Americans have seen giant companies fail, significant job losses, and, after unprecedented problems in the credit markets, the frightening prospect of total disarray within our Nation's mainstream economy. The crisis in the credit markets came at us quickly. We were told that urgent Government action was needed in order to shore up the broader economy and that failure to act would lead to a complete collapse of consumer credit, the very lifeblood of our Nation's economy. Under ordinary circumstances, I would have opposed such a measure. Government intervention in the marketplace, [[Page S10896]] frankly, cuts against all my ordinary impulses. But this was not an ordinary event. I and many others believed that extraordinary action was needed to protect millions of ordinary Americans from the colossal and far-reaching mistakes of a few. And action was taken. The systemic breakdown some envisioned has not occurred. So there is reason to believe the medicine has had some effect. But on the whole, the overall economy continues to struggle. Some industries have been hit harder than others, and one of them certainly is the auto industry. The problems in the auto industry have been long in the making. But last month the situation grew so dire that American automobile makers came to Washington with an urgent appeal for Federal help. Over the past few weeks, lawmakers have taken the time to examine the problems of these companies and the solutions that have been proposed. Now the American taxpayers are being asked to put their money behind a plan that is aimed at helping these companies survive. Republicans received that plan late yesterday morning, about this time yesterday. We reviewed it closely to see if it meets the criteria I have laid out repeatedly for taxpayer protections and for an effective strategy for securing the long-term viability of these companies. In the end, I concluded that it does not. In some ways, the proposal that was worked out by the White House and congressional Democrats appears tough. It calls on struggling auto companies and auto workers to make the sort of sacrifices they have not been accustomed to making in the past. It also includes time limits as a way of hastening necessary reforms. But in reality, this proposal is not nearly tough enough. A primary weakness relates to the so-called car czar who has nearly unlimited power to allocate taxpayer dollars but limited ability to force the kinds of tough concessions long-term viability would require. Another problem lies outside the proposal itself, and here I am referring to the type of Government action that is being contemplated. Somewhat lost in the recent debate over the auto industry is the fundamental difference between it and the financial rescue plan Congress approved in October. While that plan was intended to rescue the entire economy, this one is intended to save a single industry. That plan was intended to help everyone from small business owners to college students, and every lawmaker who voted for it acted in the belief that is exactly what it would do. A failure to appreciate this distinction has caused a number of other industries and even a number of municipalities across the country to prepare their own proposals for Government rescue, as all Americans weather the tough economy. It has also created the impression in some minds that the Federal Government is picking favorites and that favorite businesses get help while others do not. A lot of struggling Americans are asking where their bailout is. They wonder why one business would get support over another. When it comes to the auto industry, many Republicans in Congress have asked these same questions. There are many principled reasons to oppose this bill. But the simplest one is also the best--a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take everything we have. This is as true for individuals as it is for business. It is the primary principle upon which American industry, including the auto industry, was built. Even in turbulent moments such as this--perhaps especially at moments such as this--it is a principle worth defending. Now, some argue the effects of the auto industry collapse would be too acute and far-reaching for an already struggling economy to bear. This is impossible to know. Even if we grant that these companies would fail without taxpayer help, we would still have to ask ourselves whether the proposal before us achieves the goal everyone claims to embrace; namely, the long-term viability of ailing car companies. In my view, it does not. I have already enumerated some of the weaknesses in the plan. But in the end, its greatest single flaw is it promises taxpayer money today for reforms that may or may not come tomorrow. We would not be serving the American taxpayer well if we spent their hard-earned money without knowing with certainty that their investment would result in stronger, leaner automobile companies that would not need additional taxpayer help a few months or weeks down the road. We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure. Now, all Americans, including myself, are worried about the future of our Nation's automakers. These companies have a venerable place in the story of modern America. They continue to provide hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country, including 50,000 auto-related jobs in my home State of Kentucky. But many Americans are also worried about the prospect of the Government intervening on behalf of some industries and not intervening on behalf of others, especially when there is no guarantee--no guarantee--that the interventions will work. They wonder when the spending stops. If I were to vote in favor of this bill, I would not have a very good answer for them. The best route for the long-term viability of ailing car companies may be a rocky one. Government help is not the only option. It is not even the best option. Long-term viability is still possible, but it is only possible if these companies are forced to make the tough choices necessary for their survival. My colleague, Senator Corker, has proposed an amendment that would go a long way toward improving this bill. In keeping with the principles I have outlined before in these comments this morning, the Corker amendment does not just encourage reform--it doesn't just encourage reform--it requires reform. It does so with crucial specificity. First, participating companies would be required to reduce their outstanding debt by at least two-thirds through an equity swap with bondholders. The Corker amendment also requires that labor cost at participating companies be brought on par with companies such as Nissan, Toyota-- which I also have in my State--and Honda, not tomorrow but immediately because it is delusional to think a company which spends $71 per labor hour could compete with a company in the same industry that spends $49 per labor hour. The Corker amendment would improve the liquidity and cash flow of automakers by requiring that a portion of the payments made to the union accounts consist of company stock. Finally, the Corker amendment would require participating companies to file for chapter 11 reorganization if any of these conditions--if any of these conditions-- aren't met by a fixed date. The Corker amendment forces necessary reforms, holds companies accountable, and assures taxpayers that these companies will not be back for more. If legislative action were necessary, the Corker proposal would make many much needed and dramatic improvements to the underlying bill. I, similar to all my colleagues, want the U.S. auto industry not only to survive but to thrive. By cutting costs, streamlining production, increasing fuel efficiency, and investing in new technologies and attractive, more competitive designs, American auto companies will once again make cars people all over the world will want to buy. Then, Americans would be able to say, again, with pride that our cars are the best. In addition, protecting the taxpayer is a goal Republicans have been fighting hard for in this debate, and in my view it is a goal that is well worth our efforts. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business, with a 10-minute time limit. There is no unanimous consent request on the order of speakers. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have to say we are now here, approaching Christmas, in a deepening recession. On December 1, the National Bureau of Economic Research said that, in fact, the recession had begun in December 2007. [[Page S10897]] How many jobs have been lost in the last year? Almost 2 million jobs have been lost in the last year. So we are here today on the heels of a loss of 2 million jobs. The unemployment rate stands at 6.7 percent, and it is growing. In my State, it is 8.2 percent. Today, the Labor Department reported that initial applications for jobless benefits rose to 573,000, the highest number in 26 years. So when I hear someone come to the floor and say: Gee, I didn't get all the language until a couple days ago and this is a problem; you know, sit down and read the language. We cannot afford to say we are not going to do something and act to turn around this recession because somebody didn't have the time to read the bill. Consumer confidence has plunged to its lowest level since the survey began in 1967. Gross domestic product has dipped, personal spending decreased 3.7 percent in the third quarter, and according to the CBO-- the Congressional Budget Office--American workers lost more than $2 trillion over 15 months as the stock market decline devastated retirement accounts. Let me say that again. American workers lost more than $2 trillion over 15 months as the stock market decline devastated retirement savings accounts. So we are dealing with a crisis. Compared to a year ago, U.S. foreclosure filings increased 71 percent in the third quarter. The Institute for Supply Management Index, which is a key gauge of U.S. manufacturing activity, fell to a 26-year low in November. Manufacturing activity fell to a 26-year low in November. Home prices, tracked by S&P's 20-city housing index, dropped 17.4 percent in September. That is a record--the fastest decline on record. Do you hear what I am saying? The job losses, the jobless claims, the foreclosures, the stock market, everything is going in the wrong direction. For people who don't know what the fundamentals of the economy mean, that is the fundamentals of the economy. That is the fundamentals--unemployment, housing prices, stock market, retirement incomes. Construction spending fell by 1.2 percent in October, much more than what was expected--another fundamental of the economy. Construction of single-family homes plunged 4.6 percent from September. Sales at the wholesale level plunged by 4.1 percent in October. That is nationwide. My State of California trails only Michigan in the total number of auto-related jobs. In fact, there are nearly 200,000 Californians employed by auto dealers, manufacturers, and wholesalers whose livelihoods are at stake. At the Vehicle Accessory Center in Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 50 workers manufacture auto parts for GM cars. The general manager, Russell Hoyt, writes that without a bridge loan to the Big Three, ``we run the risk of losing all of the gains we've made over the years to make our company more competitive and to build new technologies and cars that will benefit consumers and improve our nation's energy security.'' Gina Underwood, the controller of a Saturn dealership that employs 48 people in Ontario, CA, wrote to me about the impact the credit market is having on her business. She says ``the potential trickle down into my community borders on catastrophic.'' She adds that ``helping our industry in the short-term will have a much lower cost than addressing the effects of a failed industry in the midst of an economic turnaround.'' The Los Angeles Federation of Labor says the decline in the auto industry is ``responsible for nearly 11 percent of California's job loss in the past year. It has also robbed millions of dollars from state and local treasuries that are responsible for funding some of our most crucial public services.'' The California chapter of the United Auto Workers writes that ``these loans will enable domestic auto companies to continue operations and will avoid putting thousands of people out of work.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the California recession figures. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: California Recession Figures In California, the unemployment rate is at 8.2 percent--the highest in 14 years. California has lost 101,000 jobs over the past year and 487,000 more people were looking for work in October than were doing so a year ago. 1.5 million Californians are out of work. The University of the Pacific Business Forecasting Center has predicted that the state's unemployment rate will peak at 9.6 percent the end of next year and won't dip below 9 percent until 2011. Through the first three quarters of 2008, more than 189,000 California homes were lost to foreclosure. The number of California homes in foreclosure totaled 79,511 in the third quarter--more than triple last year's number. In cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, housing prices have declined more than 25 percent. In October 51 percent of homes sold in Southern California were in foreclosures, compared to 16 percent the year before. A recent report stated that over 27 percent of California homeowners are already ``underwater,'' or have negative equity in their home. The Joint Economic Committee estimates that California state-wide home prices will fall 17 percent between 2007 and 2009, resulting in a net loss of over 1 trillion in housing wealth. The state budget shortfall for next year could reach $28 billion. Mrs. BOXER. Suffice it to say that 1.5 million Californians are out of work, and in the third quarter we had 79,000 foreclosures, more than triple last year's numbers. We have a State budget crisis, some of it emanating from this downturn, and we have to step up to the plate and do our part. Whether we live in a city, whether we live in a county, whether we work for the people as a member of a city council, whether we work as a county supervisor, whether we work as a mayor or a House Member or a Senator, all of us who work for the people have to step up to the plate. I did something interesting, and it might be of interest to you. I worked with my staff. We have 58 counties in California and we got on the phone and we talked to the leaders of each of those counties and the 10 major cities in our State. We do have 38 million people in our State. They told us what is happening on the ground there, and it is not a pretty picture. Now, some of them are doing better than others. A lot of them are facing unemployment rates in their cities of 13 percent, 12 percent, and 9 percent. In the inland empire area, which is just east of Los Angeles, we have the highest unemployment rate in the Nation, about 9.1 percent. So the point of my setting the stage for my remarks by giving a broad look at what is happening is to make sure people understand we are not taking up this auto rescue plan in normal times. If it was normal times, that would be one thing. I wouldn't be that sympathetic to the big three in normal times. I have had my arguments with them since the 1980s. I think their fighting California and the 19 other States that want better fuel economy is a huge mistake on their part, and I don't want to reward them for that. But I have to tell you, when you look at the times we are in, you recognize we need to bridge these troubled times right now, bridge these troubled times with a loan so we can take a look at this when we have a new President, a new Congress, and, frankly, when we begin to see a light at the end of this tunnel, which I believe is going to come when our new President comes to us in January and we start to put together a plan for economic recovery. How tragic would it be if we lost this manufacturing base at this point in this recession, just as I do believe we are going to pull ourselves out of this mess we are in. We need a bridge to better times for the auto industry. By the way, other countries around the globe are doing the same for their auto industries. Because there are two things happening here. Detroit got in trouble because, in my view, they built those big cars, they didn't diversify their fleet, and they fought us on fuel economy. Believe me, I was in that fight against them every step of the way. They won that fight. But now they are losing at the end of the day because they made a mistake in fighting us. But we don't want to lose this manufacturing base at this time. We would be the only industrialized nation in the world not to have a domestic auto industry. When I hear my colleagues say I don't like this little sentence here or that sentence there, I understand that. Believe me, there are a lot of things in [[Page S10898]] these bills I do not like at all. But we have to step back and say, in these troubled times, unparalleled since the Great Depression, do we want to leave here and risk the chance that we could wake up without a manufacturing base in our great Nation? I say the answer is no. I have three reasons for voting for this rescue package: Jobs, jobs and jobs. When we were hit with foreclosures, the first round of them, they had to do with predatory lending. They had to do with some things that were outrageous--people put in these subprime loans who could have been in prime loans. They woke up one day when they were paying $400 a month and suddenly it is $1,000 a month. They couldn't do it. We hope those loans could be restructured. That is one set of difficult circumstances for going into foreclosures. The far worse set of circumstances is when you lose your job and your family cannot make it. That is the thing I wish to avoid. My focus is on this economy and making sure we are doing everything to save, preserve, and create jobs. With each passing day, we realize what a crisis we are in. Again, today we found out more people filed for unemployment compensation, a bigger number than we have seen in 26 years. When I heard we lost 533,000 jobs last month, it sent shivers up and down my spine. If we don't act, we risk seeing another 2 to 3 million jobs that could be at risk. We know even the collapse of one of the big three could cause that. In my home State, we have 200,000 auto-related jobs, second only to Michigan. At the Vehicle Accessory Center at Rancho Cucamonga, our general manager there writes that without a bridge loan to the big three: We run the risk of losing all the gains we've made over the years to make our company more competitive and to build new technologies and cars that will benefit consumers and improve our nation's energy security. Gina Underwood, a controller at Saturn of Ontario, employing 48 people in Ontario, CA, wrote to me about the impact of the credit crisis. She says: The potential trickle down into my community borders on catastrophic. She adds: Helping our industry in the short-term will have a much lower cost than addressing the effects of a failed industry in the midst of an economic turnaround. The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor says the decline in the auto industry: . . . is responsible for nearly 11 percent of California's job loss in the past year. The California chapter of the United Auto Workers writes: These loans will enable domestic auto companies to continue operations and will avoid putting thousands of people out of work. I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Vehicle Accessory Center, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, November 12, 2008. Senator Barbara Boxer. Dear Senator Boxer: I own a company that exclusively provides goods and services to General Motors Dealerships in Southern California. I am writing to urge you to support GM and America's domestic auto industry. Our company employs up to 50 people and there are millions more Americans among suppliers, dealers, retirees and communities that depend on our industry for their livelihood and well-being. All of us need your support now. We cannot sustain our industry because of the worst financial crisis to hit our country in over half a century. We run the risk of losing all of the gains we've made over the years to make our company more competitive and to build new technologies and cars that will benefit consumers and improve our nation's energy security. Our industry is the real economy that runs through Main Street. I call on you and your Congressional colleagues to help preserve jobs and help the domestic auto industry weather this financial storm. With your support, I know my company will emerge stronger and more competitive. And, that means a stronger economy and a more competitive America. I have attached an industry fact sheet that really demonstrates the critical nature of this industry to our economy. I look forward to seeing you take an active role in passing legislation to support this critical economic need. Sincerely, Russell R. Hoyt, General Manager/Partner. ____ Saturn of Ontario, Ontario, CA, December 2, 2008. Hon. Barbara Boxer, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Boxer: My name is Gina M Underwood and I am the Controller at Saturn of Ontario. My dealership employs 48 with an annual payroll of $1,986,059. Our business also supports dozens of local suppliers that are intertwined in our community providing multiple more jobs. I am writing because I fear much of this will be lost and the impact to my community severe if the domestic auto industry is allowed to fail under the weight of the current economic chaos. I believe I have good reason to request your support. The negative effects of the global credit crisis have caused a huge downturn in consumer confidence that I see play out on my car lot every day. I have seen my sales plummet to levels not seen since World War II. The manufacturers who supply me can't get credit to complete their restructurings and put advanced technologies into production, my customers can't get credit to buy the new cars off my lot and I can't get credit to finance my monthly inventory. The potential trickle down into my community borders on catastrophic. Hundreds of jobs in my community will be lost. Multiple suppliers will go under. On a broader scale, billions of dollars already invested in asserting U.S. technological leadership for advanced propulsion systems--in batteries, fuel cells, hybrids and biofuels--will be lost. Our manufacturing ability, critical for our national security is threatened which only exacerbates our dependence on foreign oil. The critics say that the industry has not done enough to save itself. They could not be more wrong. The auto manufacturers have been investing $10 billion in plants and equipment each year. The quality gap has been all but erased between U.S.-based and foreign manufacturers. And new labor agreements that will put the domestic industry in line with our foreign competitors will take effect in 2010. I cannot urge you strongly enough to take action on behalf of my community and my industry. Helping our industry in the short-term will have a much lower cost than addressing the effects of a failed industry in the midst of an economic turnaround. Sadly, I fear the price of inaction is greater than my business can bear. Thank you for your time to hear my concerns. Sincerely, Gina Underwood. ____ Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, Los Angeles, CA, December 5, 2008. Senator Barbara Boxer, Los Angeles, CA. Hon. Barbara Boxer: I write to you out of concern for the millions of autoworkers who will lose their good jobs if federal emergency aid isn't passed for automakers and because the industry's downfall is responsible for nearly 11 percent of California's job loss in the past year. It has also robbed tens of millions of dollars from state and local treasuries that are responsible for funding some of our most crucial public services. While we in Los Angeles are fortunate not to be home to an industry that is on a verge of collapse, we are the nation's capitol of the working poor. In my many years leading the union representing hotel workers, I have come to witness how low-wage workers struggle just to get by. They struggle to feed their children, pay their bills and rent. When their children fall ill they rely on home remedies instead of taking them to the doctor because they simply can't afford it. My concern for workers if the emergency assistance fails to pass is not whether they will find another job elsewhere, but what will become of them in that next job. I worry that it will force them into our nation's ranks of the working poor. In my 30 years in the labor movement I've come to learn that poverty in our communities doesn't stem from a lack of jobs. It stems from a lack of good jobs that provide middle class wages and benefits--jobs that provide the pathway to reach the American dream. As leaders, you as a public servant and I as a labor leader, have a moral responsibility to fight for good jobs that allow men and women to raise their families with pride, dignity and with the piece of mind that a secure retirement brings. We must do everything possible to ensure that the industry that was once the backbone of our middle class rises to those heights once again, So I urge you today to vote for government aid to automakers. In solidarity, Maria Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer. ____ UAW Region 5, Fremont, CA, December 1, 2008. Re Bridge Loan for the Big Three. Hon. Barbara Boxer, San Francisco, CA. Dear Senator Boxer: On behalf of the UAW postdoctoral research members who reside in San Francisco, we would greatly appreciate it if you would take some time away from your busy schedule to meet with us before December 8, 2008, here in the City. The purpose of our meeting is to help you understand the serious issues that the UAW is facing concerning the Big Three auto loans. These loans will enable domestic auto companies to continue operations and will avoid putting thousands of people out of work. We also need to remember that suppliers who make certain parts for auto companies will be affected by this as well. Let's [[Page S10899]] not forget that the auto industry has been woven into the fabric of the United States of America, and without it, we will fail. This is an extremely important issue to all of us. Please would you contact my secretary, Veronica Morgan, at (510) 656-9901, and let her know the date and time you will be available. You can also contact me on my cell, xxxxxxxxxx xxxx. Sincerely, Pat Caccamo, UAW CAP Representative, Region 5. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the unemployment rate in my State, again, is 8.2 percent in California; 8.2 percent. It is rising. Losing another 200,000 jobs at this time is catastrophic. If we leave and we risk that, then it is our fault. The people who vote this way will have to answer to their own consciences. Failure to act is not an option. Here's the thing, there is a huge cost of inaction. I understand my colleagues are very concerned about the cost to taxpayers. I share that concern. I never heard them talk about that when their States were giving all kinds of incentives to foreign car companies to come in. I will get to that later. But here is what happens in addition to the massive job losses if the big three fail. The burden on taxpayers to pick up the pieces would be much more costly than these loans. Losing GM, Ford or Chrysler would add billions of dollars in costs to the already depleted Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Taxpayers would have to provide health care, unemployment benefits, and other related services. Unfunded health care liabilities would be forced into Medicare and Medicaid with costs reaching $50 billion. If the automakers file for bankruptcy, it could lead to a $108 billion loss to the Treasury because of reduced individual income. My colleagues say let them go bankrupt, as if it is a magic solution. It is not a magic solution because the polls tell us 80 percent of the people will not buy a car from a bankrupt automaker because of obvious reasons. If you want to keep your car 3, 4, 5 years--I keep mine 9 or 10 years--you want to make sure you have the parts available to fix your car. You want to make sure you have someone who understands the car and can service the car. This is not similar to a dress company going out of business and declaring bankruptcy. That is sad and it is tough but, you know, you are not going to worry about it. If you have a dress by someone and the company goes out of business, you are not going to be dealing with that manufacturer. You are if you buy a car. By providing $14 billion in loan authority now with requirements that the money be paid back, we are taking steps to protect taxpayers from at least $150 billion in future liabilities, should the auto companies shut down. Then there are people who say isn't this the first of what could be many interventions? I can't predict that. I am just saying at this time, now, with what we know about the state of this economy, with what we know about the state of the lost equity in the market, with what we know about the state of housing, of construction, of the number of people filing--this the Christmas season. My goodness, let's take a chance on this. Let's take a chance on this. The administration gave $150 billion to an insurance company. I never heard anybody at that time say: Well, the workers in that insurance company make too much money. That is the problem. You never heard a word about that from my Republican friends. Blaming the workers for this is outrageous. They have given back and they have given back and they have given back. What would happen to the thousands of other associated businesses that rely on GM, Ford, and Chrysler if they went belly up? The big three share 80 percent of the supplier base in this country. If one of the companies goes bankrupt, these small- and medium-size businesses could lose significant revenue and be forced to make layoffs or close their doors. I wish to talk about other countries taking significant steps to support their domestic auto manufacturing base. Countries throughout Europe and Asia are providing assistance to their auto manufacturers during this time of crisis. You take all the auto companies now--take Toyota. Their sales are way down. Everybody is hit by this recession. The question is, Do we abandon this manufacturing base? Credit markets are still frozen. For that, I have to say, and let me be clear--I don't understand what Mr. Paulson has done since we gave him that authority for $350 billion. Why are the credit markets still as frozen as they are? The answer comes back: It could have been worse. I believe that. It could have been worse. But we need to do a better job there. Let me be clear, I am not voting--if I have to vote today, tomorrow, next week-- to release the next $350 billion to this administration. So let me put that on the line. Other countries are recognizing that, with the credit markets frozen, they need to maintain their strong manufacturing base. We are the greatest country in the world. How could we ever continue our leadership if we lose that manufacturing base? I know Senator Stabenow has been quite eloquent on the point, about how integrated the manufacturing base is with our military and national defense infrastructure. The big three automakers are the biggest customers for many of the major suppliers of parts and technology for the armed services. From onboard computer devices to tires to engine machinery, these suppliers often rely on the big three to sustain their businesses. I say to my colleagues on the other side who are taking the lead against this: Think about it. We all stand for a strong defense. If you lose this manufacturing base, whom are you going to rely on if we have more national emergencies, international emergencies? We know we cannot afford to lose this base. I mentioned before that some of my colleagues on the other side--the Senator from Alabama, the Senator from Tennessee--they have been very outspoken against helping the auto companies. Where were they when Alabama provided $258 million in taxpayer-funded incentives to the foreign automaker Mercedes-Benz to build an auto manufacturing plant in the State of Alabama? I never heard them speak up. Do they only speak out against American workers who work for American companies here? They support the foreign companies, not the American companies. Tennessee offered at least $200 million in incentives to Toyota to build an assembly plant in Chattanooga. Instead, they landed in Mississippi. Mississippi provided Toyota $296 million in taxpayer- funded initiatives. Why don't I hear my colleagues from Tennessee or Mississippi out here saying: Oh, that was a mistake. Taxpayers should not have been on the hook. Something is wrong. Is this about not helping these workers because they are tough and they joined a union? Is that it? What is this? It doesn't smell right. You can't support giving money to lure foreign manufacturers into your State, foreign auto companies into your State, and then suddenly turn on folks who are trying to save the domestic automobile industry. It is not that I am against what those States did. I am just talking about being consistent. If you didn't oppose giving money to foreign car companies, why do you oppose giving a bridge loan to our own domestic manufacturing base at a time of great economic peril? We will live to fight another day on this, that is for sure. As I said, if this were a different time, if this were a different place, if the economy were thriving and one of those companies had problems due to their own ineptitude, I would not be here now. This is a worldwide recession. Other countries are moving forward. I hope the American people understand this. If we are to add 2 to 3 million more unemployed people onto the list, we are going to be in a downward spiral. It is going to be very hard for us to recover in the near term. Again, the big three have made a lot of mistakes. I met with them in the 1980s. I will never forget it. I was over in the House and I was on a committee that was dealing with fuel economy. I said: Why don't you make more of these fuel-efficient cars? At that time, I said: My kids are in college. I see their friends are all buying these smaller cars. They want to buy American, but they cannot. They cannot afford the gas. That was after we had this crisis in the 1970s. They said: You don't know what you are talking about. Those small cars, you don't make enough money on [[Page S10900]] them, they are no good. People want big cars. That is good. We make more money. They said to me: We are giving up those small cars to other companies, to foreign companies. I believed that was wrong. I said you need to have diversity. They decided to go their way. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the management over there responsible for this. They didn't take the lead in research and development of advanced technology vehicles. They put too many of their resources into gas guzzlers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 10 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mrs. BOXER. They ignored signs that their future success would depend on an ability to adapt to a changing business climate with innovation and new technologies. When I learned of the financial problems facing GM, Ford, and Chrysler, I viewed a possible rescue plan as an opportunity to help Detroit embrace new technologies that could lead them toward a strong and prosperous future. I still think, because of the White House's objection, the bill before us is making a big mistake because I wanted to make sure we could say in this bridge loan the funds could not be used to pursue litigation related to the California waiver. Well, the administration will not go for that. We know where they stand on energy independence, we know where they stand on fighting global warming, on clean cars. They stand nowhere--or I should say they stand somewhere in a bad place. If the big three would embrace the California waiver, understanding that 19 other States are with us, and produce cars to meet the goals, the very clean-air goals we have there, I think we would be a leader in the world. I see that in our future. I really do. I know in your State, Mr. President, we are seeing a whole new range of manufacturing dealing with solar panels. It is very exciting. This is the future. This is the future. Our big three should be leading the way. I hope they got the message in this last runup of gas prices. I hope they get the message that there is global warming and that we are going to have to deal with it if our planet is to survive. I am confident that President-elect Obama is going to approve the waiver. I am confident that when he does that, it is going to be a big help to the big three because they will really buckle down. By the way, we are going to reimburse this technology fund, they are going to move ahead and they are going to meet the requirements with the cleanest cars possible, and it will be a new day. Now, if all three of them do it and two of them survive in the future, that may be the way. We do not know. But what we do know is that today, this day, December 11, so close to Christmas, we do know that to walk away without helping this important industry could lead--could lead--to a far deeper recession and even toward a depression. With this auto retooling program from which these funds are being borrowed, this will be replenished. Speaker Pelosi has indicated to me personally that they will be replenished. I call on my colleagues in the Senate to support quick replenishment of the program, which is essential to the effort of repositioning the U.S. at the forefront of new transportation and advanced battery technologies. You know, we have startup companies in my State--very exciting. One of them is called Tesla Motors and the other is Fisker Automotive. That is two of them. They are leading the effort to develop advanced technology batteries, zero-emission cars, and high-performance plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. I have driven some of these cars. They are extraordinary. These companies and others, including the big three, are processing section 136 loan applications to retool manufacturing plants and speed up the development of technology that will put the United States right out in front, leading the way to clean cars and clean technology. I wish to point out that no bill is perfect. I could write a bill that would be far better for me. Every Senator could. But there is significant taxpayer oversight in this bill, as well as benchmarks that the big three must meet in order to continue to receive Government assistance. By January 1, the car czar will develop benchmarks to determine how to assess each company's progress in turning its plans submitted to Congress into long-term restructuring plans. The benchmarks will focus on how the big three will restructure their businesses for long-term viability, increased fuel efficiency, advanced technology, managing debt, capitalization, and future cost requirements. So to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say: Let them go bankrupt, it is better, they will restructure, we are going to make sure they restructure without declaring bankruptcy and without unloading all of the cost of that bankruptcy onto the backs of taxpayers. If any of the big three fail to submit long-term restructuring plans by March 31, 2009, the car czar has the authority to call the loan or cancel the loan commitment within 30 days, requiring the loan to be paid back at an accelerated rate. Taxpayers will recover the cost of these loans over 7 years at a rate of 5 percent for the first 5 and 9 percent thereafter. The car czar will have access to all financial records of the big three and will have the ability to prohibit asset sales or possible investments over $100 million, which will protect U.S. jobs being outsourced. The Government will have senior debt status for repayment of the loans, meaning we are in the front of the line to recover loan payments regardless of the companies' success. Stock warrants will ensure the taxpayers benefit from any future growth these companies may experience. The bill prohibits golden parachutes, puts limits on executive compensation and bonus compensation to top employees, and it requires the companies to divest from any private jet investments. The payment of dividends to shareholders will be prohibited during the loan period. In other words, there is every incentive for these companies to turn their companies around. They want to pay dividends to shareholders, they want to get bonuses, they want to get back to business as usual. But we say: Before you do, you have to pay us back. They have a lot of reasons to make this turnaround. The loan program will be subject to strict auditing by the Comptroller General and the GAO. The car czar will be tasked with facilitating agreements between unions, retirees, debtholders, creditors, suppliers, auto dealers, and shareholders to reduce costs and ensure long-term viability. Again, I say to my colleagues who are saying let them go bankrupt, take a look at this bill. You are saying let them go bankrupt because they will have to restructure. We say restructure without the bankruptcy because if, in fact, there is a bankruptcy declared, 80 percent of the American people say they will not buy a car from a company that has gone bankrupt. I understood that. So this avoids the bankruptcy and allows them to restructure. If we fail to do this, we are playing Russian roulette with this recession. In times of crisis, you have to see opportunities. I believe, as a major critic of the car companies since the 1980s when I was here in the House of Representatives, they have finally gotten the message. It has taken them too long. They have been too arrogant. They have not seen the world changing. They have not noticed global warming. They have been blinded to so many things that were happening around them. They were hostile to California and the 19 other States that want to clean up our environment and get better fuel mileage, have clean cars. Instead of embracing those States and working with those States--by the way, those 19 States and California represent a majority of the American people. A majority of the American people want clean cars. Now, it may have taken this horrific turn of events to get the message through, but clearly the message must be getting through. Jeffrey Sachs wrote recently in the Washington Post: American-made fuel-cell cars may be a large-scale reality within a decade. Success would dramatically improve energy and national security and U.S. global competitiveness. Now, this is the opportunity. But guess what. If we do not act, if we do not act and this recession keeps deepening, we will not have this chance. We will be the only industrialized democracy without a domestic auto company [[Page S10901]] and without that manufacturing base. So we have to do what is necessary to push Detroit toward a stronger, more efficient future. It may be that at some point in the future, that industry will have a different look to it. Maybe it will have a different look to it. We do not know that. But what we do know now is that what has hit Detroit is far more than making the wrong choices about what cars they produce. I think they made those wrong choices, but it is far bigger than that because every company in America and outside of America that is making cars is suffering today because of the terrible recession we are in, because of a lack of consumer confidence, because of a loss of equity in the stock market, because of home foreclosures, because of all of these things. So I say you never know what could happen in the future. I am not able to predict it because I cannot. But I know what I have to do now. I have to think about those three things: jobs, jobs, and jobs. When I think about that, and I recognize that just today we had more filings for unemployment insurance than we have had in 26 years, I say for us to walk away from this without this scaled-down bridge loan would be playing Russian roulette with this recession. I love my country too much to do that. With all of the problems I have with Detroit, I will support helping them in this fashion. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10901-2,2008-12-11,110,2,,,ORDER OF PROCEDURE,SENATE,SENATE,SORDER,S10901,S10901,"[{""name"": ""John Barrasso"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10901,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10901] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] ORDER OF PROCEDURE Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson of Florida be allowed to speak after me. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam President. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10901-3,2008-12-11,110,2,,,"CLEANUP OF NUCLEAR MISSILE SITE IN CHEYENNE, WYOMING",SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10901,S10901,"[{""name"": ""John Barrasso"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10901,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10901] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] CLEANUP OF NUCLEAR MISSILE SITE IN CHEYENNE, WYOMING Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I stand here today holding a 500-page report, a report that was sent to my office yesterday by the Army Corps of Engineers. I will not read the whole report, I am happy to say, but I want to call attention to the Senate and to the country, as well as to the people of Wyoming, what is contained within this report. This report, at a cost of who knows how many taxpayer dollars, says something I have known and the people of Wyoming have known to be true. It says the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the contamination of the water wells of the city of Cheyenne. Now, let me clarify. The report does not actually say the words ``we are responsible.'' Washington could never admit its faults so directly. No. Instead, the report states that other potential sources of contamination, other potential sources of this trichloroethylene--the contaminant, the chemical that is in our city's wells--it says that other potential sources ``may be limited.'' I guess that is Washington's way of saying: It was us. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the city of Cheyenne found evidence of trichloroethylene in the water supply in 1998--10 years ago. The culprit is a dormant Cold War-era nuclear missile area. It is a missile site and has been there for a long time. The Army Corps of Engineers admits that over 1,800 gallons of this contaminant, TCE, was dumped at the Atlas 4 nuclear missile site each year--each year--of the operation of the missile site, beginning in the mid-1960s. Well, the discharge of TCE the Army Corps admits to is a mere 1 mile--1 mile--from the water wells of the city of Cheyenne. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has claimed there is one giant plume of TCE emanating from the former nuclear missile site, working its way into and then contaminating the city's water wells. The missile site is currently being cleaned up under the Superfund laws by the Army Corps of Engineers. Unfortunately, the Army Corps only admits culpability for TCE contamination directly emanating from the nuclear missile site. They allege that there is actually a gap between the plume they admit to at the nuclear missile site and the one around the city's water wells--1 mile apart. Now, you might think it odd that the Department of Defense, given the volume of this chemical that has been dumped year after year in rural Wyoming, would not admit that it was the responsible party for contaminating the city's wells. That would just make sense. They would say: Yes, we dumped it here. It is right here, a mile away in the wells. It is our fault. No. It would just make sense to us that they would admit it. But, in fact, the Army Corps over the last few years has looked to blame almost anyone else, has looked to blame others than to say they are responsible for contaminating the city's wells. Well, such claims have included that there might have been a train derailment and the train might have been carrying TCE into the area. They said it might have been from a nearby oil rig, it might have been from a local shooting range. The Army Corps said: Anybody but us. I became involved in this issue after I felt the city of Cheyenne and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality were being ignored by Washington. As ranking member of the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee, I pushed for testing of the ground in that 1-mile area between the nuclear missile site and the water wells of the city of Cheyenne. The Army Corps finally agreed to do the testing and said it would also look into the historical use of this chemical in the Cheyenne area to make sure there was not another responsible party for the contamination. The final results--all 500 pages--were finally released this week. To no one's surprise who lives in Wyoming, to no one's surprise who is familiar with this issue, to no one's surprise but the Army Corps of Engineers, the contaminating chemical, TCE, was found in the ground between the nuclear missile site and the city's water wells, right where we said it would be. The report also revealed they found no other public records of TCE use in the Cheyenne area for any other reason. It just makes sense to us, and the cause is clear. Given these findings, it is time for the Army Corps to provide the funding the city needs to manage and to complete the current cleanup efforts. Now, let me be clear. The city of Cheyenne's water is safe. Untold thousands of taxpayer dollars have gone to keep TCE out of the water supply. The city of Cheyenne and the State of Wyoming have implemented the effective procedures to protect the folks in Cheyenne. Those efforts have been completely successful. But the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Government have the responsibility to fund the cleanup. They have responsibility to fix the problem, and this report says it is so. It is time to do so. Madam President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10901-4,2008-12-11,110,2,,,TRIBUTE TO SENATORS,SENATE,SENATE,TRIBUTETO,S10901,S10902,"[{""name"": ""Bill Nelson"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Sheldon Whitehouse"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10901,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10901-S10902] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] TRIBUTE TO SENATORS John Warner Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a true patriot and a dear friend, Senator John Warner of Virginia. It has been an extraordinary experience for me to serve with Senator Warner on the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. In the capacity of his service on the Armed Services Committee, which has been upwards of three decades, serving as its chairman, the insight and guidance he has provided has been invaluable. Over and over, you will hear the [[Page S10902]] members of that committee speak as I, as if with one voice, how we appreciate his public service. He has great knowledge. He has great wisdom. It is tempered with a wonderful personality that is most studious and deliberative. Few have done as much to champion the cause of our men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States as John Warner. This Senator admires him for his sense of fairness, for his mutual respect of all the Members of the Senate. We know there has to be civility in the Senate for it to function. There has to be mutual respect. There has to be respect for the truth. There has to be respect for the dignity of individuals and those Senators' families. All of that is certainly apropos of the senior Senator from Virginia. Over and over, I have been in situations with him that could have been adversarial. Yet his calm judgment and reason have brought people together. Of course, that is the admonition of the Good Book: ``Come let us reason together.'' Over and over, as I have sought his counsel on matters of some of the Nation's highest secrets, John Warner has provided the leadership and the clarity, as we have made those decisions, sometimes making those decisions together. So it is with a great reluctance on my part that I see our colleague, Senator Warner, retire after a very distinguished and long career. It has been a privilege to serve with John. I will miss him as a colleague. I will miss his leadership, his fairness, and his great capacity as a gentleman of the Senate. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10901,2008-12-11,110,2,,,EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10901,S10901,"[{""name"": ""Barbara Boxer"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""John Barrasso"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10901,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10901] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10902,2008-12-11,110,2,,,AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY CRISIS,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10902,S10904,"[{""name"": ""Sheldon Whitehouse"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Carl Levin"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Claire McCaskill"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10902,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10902-S10904] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY CRISIS Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today to address what I feel is an unfortunate omission from our economic rescue strategy to date. This week, we are considering another bailout which would give $15 billion in so-called bridge loans to America's struggling automakers. Now, when we debated a bailout program to protect our Nation's financial system back in September, we created legislative branch roles and executive branch roles. We ultimately passed legislation that empowered the Department of the Treasury to invest up to $700 billion. Debate was rushed. The Treasury Secretary came to us on a Friday in September and told leaders of both parties in both Houses that our economy would collapse if we did not take immediate action. With the threat of immediate financial calamity and the apparent good faith of Secretary Paulson, Congress moved quickly to pass the best bill we could. Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Jack Reed, worked heroically, almost around the clock, to negotiate for taxpayer protections and several levels of oversight. In the end, we created a program of congressional and executive roles but no judicial role. We ignored the role that courts can play here or, more correctly, that executive agencies can play when supported by judicial or even quasi-judicial due process. We are about to ignore that role again in the auto bailout. Why is this point important? This is important because under our American system of government, there are important powers of government that can only be exercised after due process opportunity for a hearing. The famous Supreme Court case of Fuentes v. Shevin is on point. I quote: The constitutional right to be heard is a basic aspect of the duty of government to follow a fair process of decision- making when it acts to deprive a person of his possessions. That is citation 407 U.S. 67 at 82. In other words, some means of restructuring require due process if they involve adjusting people's financial rights and claims. When we fail to provide that process, we unilaterally disarm government's response, taking away its ability to restructure using those means. The price of this repeated omission has been high. Going back before we even got into this current mess, when there was only a subprime mortgage problem, Senator Durbin of Illinois proposed a bill that would have empowered bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of a mortgage on a person's primary residence. One needed a due process hearing such as that in order to adjust the rights within that mortgage of the banks and the myriad investors who bought strips of that mortgage when it was carved up and sold to the four winds. Our Republican colleagues stymied this provision which we now see could have kept tens of thousands of families in their homes. Because the clarity and finality of a court decision on a troubled mortgage was not available, there was little alternative to foreclosure, and troubled mortgages, by the tens of thousands, cascaded into foreclosure--numbers never before seen in our history. Our fault. Bad design. And every day we don't get it right, every day we don't pass Senator Durbin's bill, that foreclosure problem worsens. Similarly, as part of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, we could have addressed lavish and indefensible executive compensation by providing for some judicial power to restructure these packages. Because we didn't, these grotesque liabilities remain on the books of the bailed out entities as obligations to their disgraced management. According to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, the executive deferred compensation obligations of bailed out Wall Street firms amount to more than $40 billion. Banks participating in the bailout program carried these obligations on their books, and the cash from our bailout is being used to pay them--or will be used to pay them. Taxpayer dollars will end up in the pockets of the scoundrels who tanked those firms. I contend we have to find ways in which the court system, due process, can be brought to bear on this problem. But again, the inaction on that so far is our fault. Bad design. Unilateral disarmament in the face of the Wall Street meltdown. Now we have the auto bailout plan with its provision for a ``car czar,'' but once again, lacks a role for those due process powers of government. Once we are committed to this deal--once we are in--the only tool we will have at that negotiating table is Uncle Sam's checkbook--that, and the somewhat improbable threat to walk away and tank the auto companies after having put $15 billion into them. So now we will have to negotiate about the companies' continuing lavish executive and board compensation packages and other obligations impeding a fair and rational recovery. As for looking backwards at preexisting obligations, as we say in Rhode Island, forget about it. That requires due process. We have created no process to even invoke government's power to review those. So the effect of all of this is to encourage special interests to play the holdout in the auto negotiations and dare us to tank the companies. It is going to be a high stakes game of chicken and, no matter who wins, the taxpayers lose. We created this ``hold out'' problem by not providing a judicial role in the restructuring. We could, for example, give the car czar the powers of a judicially appointed conservator or receiver--those are roles I have held--and the power to go to court for an order approving his plan or her plan over the objections of any holdouts. If we did that, it would change the bargaining position of the holdouts. This judicial due process would allow the strong powers of government that require due process to be brought to bear on this mess. We do this in a lot of different contexts. Bankruptcy courts oversee restructuring all the time and so do other quasi-judicial bodies. For example, the FDIC has the power under current law to place a troubled bank into receivership and wind it down as if in chapter 7, or put it under conservatorship to restructure it as if in chapter 11. The bankruptcy courts and the FDIC possess the tools necessary to cut through whatever Gordian knots may snarl restructuring plans absent that power. [[Page S10903]] The judicial imprimatur will also increase public confidence in the fairness and the propriety of these plans. There is flexibility about how we do this. We don't have to have it be the FDIC. We don't have to have it be a bankruptcy court to recognize the due process powers of government. Fuentes v. Shevin again, and I quote: Due process tolerates variances in the form of a hearing ``appropriate to the nature of the case,'' and ``depending upon the importance of the interests involved and the nature of the subsequent proceedings, if any.'' I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of authorizing judicially supervised powers in these bailout plans. I pledge to work hard with anyone who wants to achieve this goal. It is vital, I contend, to recognize that directed judicial oversight expands government's powers and authorities to do the things the public and the circumstances demand. It gives us a means to unsnarl the foreclosure mess on Main Street, to restructure obscene executive compensation on Wall Street, and to force good-faith negotiations in Detroit. We cannot ignore the judicial power in restructuring companies and industries. We must not let that sword sleep in our hands. Times are bleak in Detroit, as they are around the country. The automobile industry stands on the brink of collapse, and the jobs of thousands-- some say millions--of workers hang in the balance. Michigan shares the sad distinction with my home State of Rhode Island in having the Nation's highest unemployment rate, 9.3 percent, in October. Families are struggling in Rhode Island and across the country. That is the background against which we must consider whether to bail out yet another industry. In making such a weighty decision, I implore my colleagues, we must not consider just whether but how we go about doing this. I contend that we should empower our Government to take steps that we have, to date, foreclosed--steps that exercise the power of Government that can be only exercised after due process of law. I hope we consider that. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article to which I referred be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [The Wall Street Journal, October 31, 2008] Banks Owe Billions to Executives (By Ellen E. Schultz) Financial giants getting injections of federal cash owed their executives more than $40 billion for past years' pay and pensions as of the end of 2007, a Wall Street Journal analysis shows. The government is seeking to rein in executive pay at banks getting federal money, and a leading congressman and a state official have demanded that some of them make clear how much they intend to pay in bonuses this year. But overlooked in these efforts is the total size of debts that financial firms receiving taxpayer assistance previously incurred to their executives, which at some firms exceed what they owe in pensions to their entire work forces. The sums are mostly for special executive pensions and deferred compensation, including bonuses, for prior years. Because the liabilities include stock, they are subject to market fluctuation. Given the stock-market decline of this year, some may have fallen substantially. Some examples: $11.8 billion at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., $8.5 billion at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and $10 billion to $12 billion at Morgan Stanley. Few firms report the size of these debts to their executives. (Goldman is an exception.) In most cases, the Journal calculated them by extrapolating from figures that the firms do have to disclose. Most firms haven't set aside cash or stock for these IOUs. They are a drag on current earnings and when the executives depart, employers have to pay them out of corporate coffers. The practice of incurring corporate IOUs for executives' pensions and past pay is perfectly legal and is common in big business, not limited to financial firms. But liabilities grew especially high in the financial industry, with its tradition of lavish pay. Deferring compensation appeals both to employers, which save cash in the near term, and to executives, who delay taxes and see their deferred-pay accounts grow, sometimes aided by matching contributions. In some cases, firms give top executives high guaranteed returns on these accounts. The liabilities are an essentially hidden obligation. Even when the debts to their executives total in the billions, most companies lump them into ``other liabilities''; only a few then identify amounts attributable to deferred pay. The Journal was able to approximate companies' IOUs, in some cases, by looking at an amount they report as deferred tax assets for ``deferred compensation'' or ``employee benefits and compensation.'' This figure shows how much a company expects to reap in tax benefits when it ultimately pays the executives what it owes them. J.P. Morgan, for instance, reported a $3.4 billion deferred tax asset for employee benefits in 2007. Assuming a 40% combined federal and state tax rate--and backing out obligations for retiree health and other items--implies the bank owed about $8.2 billion to its own executives. A person familiar with the matter confirmed the estimate. Applying the same technique to Citigroup Inc. yields roughly a $5 billion IOU, primarily for restricted stock of executives and eligible employees. Someone familiar with the matter confirmed the estimate. The Treasury is infusing $25 billion apiece into J.P. Morgan and Citigroup as it seeks to get credit flowing. In return, the federal government is getting preferred stock in the banks and warrants to buy common shares. The Treasury is injecting $125 billion into nine big banks and making a like amount available for other banks that apply. It's imposing some restrictions on how they pay top executives in the future, such as curtailing new ``golden parachutes'' and barring a tax deduction for any one person's pay above $500,000. But the rules won't affect what the banks already owe their executives or make these opaque debts more transparent. Asked about the Journal's calculation, the Treasury said, ``Every bank that accepts money through the Capital Purchase Program must first agree to the compensation restrictions passed by Congress just last month--and every bank that is receiving money has done so.'' Bear Stearns Cos., the first financial firm the U.S. backstopped, owed its executives $1.7 billion for accrued employee compensation and benefits at the start of the year, according to regulatory filings. When Bear Stearns ran into trouble after investing heavily in risky mortgage-backed securities, the government stepped in, arranging a sale of the firm and taking responsibility for up to $29 billion of its losses. The buyer, J.P. Morgan, says it will honor the debt to Bear Stearns executives, which it said is shrunken because much of it was in stock that sank in value. J.P. Morgan will also honor deferred-pay accounts at another institution it took over, Washington Mutual Inc. It couldn't be determined how big this IOU is. J.P. Morgan's move will leave the WaMu executives better off than holders of that ailing thrift's debt and preferred stock, who are expected to see little recovery. J.P. Morgan's share of the federal capital injection is $25 billion. Obligations for executive pay are large for a number of reasons. Even as companies have complained about the cost of retiree benefits, they have been awarding larger pay and pensions to executives. At Goldman, for example, the $11.8 billion obligation primarily for deferred executive compensation dwarfed the liability for its broad-based pension plan for all employees. That was just $399 million, and fully funded with set-aside assets. The deferred-compensation programs for executives are like 401(k) plans on steroids. They create hypothetical ``accounts'' into which executives can defer salaries, bonuses and restricted stock awards. For top officers, employers often enhance the deferred pay with matching contributions, and even assign an interest rate at which the hypothetical account grows. Often, it is a generous rate. At Freddie Mac, executives earned 9.25% on their deferred-pay accounts in 2007, regulatory filings show--a better deal than regular employees of the mortgage buyer could get in a 401(k). Since all this money is tax-deferred, the Treasury, and by extension the U.S. taxpayer, subsidizes the accounts. In addition, because assets are rarely set aside for executive IOUs, they have a greater impact on firms' earnings than rank-and-file pension plans, which by law must be funded. Bank of America Corp.'s $1.3 billion liability for supplemental executive pensions reduced earnings by $104 million in 2007, filings show. By contrast, the bank's regular pension plan is overfunded, and the surplus helped the plan contribute $32 million to earnings last year. While disclosing its liability for executive pensions, the bank doesn't disclose its IOU executives' deferred compensation, and it couldn't be calculated. The bank's share of the federal capital injection is $25 billion. Bank of America has agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co. Merrill is a rare example of a firm that has set aside assets for its deferred-pay obligation: $2.2 billion, matching the liability. Morgan Stanley also says its liability for executives' deferred pay is largely funded. To be sure, deferred-compensation accounts can shrink. Those of lower-level executives usually track a mutual fund, and decline if it does. Often the accounts include restricted shares, which also may lose value, especially this year. To the extent financial-firm executives were being paid in restricted stock, many have lost huge amounts of wealth in this year's stock-market plunge. The value of Morgan Stanley Chief Executive John Mack's deferred-compensation account declined by $1.3 million in fiscal 2007, to $19.9 million; much of it was in company shares. Mr. Mack didn't accept a bonus in 2007. [[Page S10904]] Executives can even lose their deferred pay altogether if their employer ends up in bankruptcy court. When Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy last month, most executives became unsecured creditors. The government didn't come to Lehman's aid. In assessing liabilities, the Journal examined federal year-end 2007 filings by the first nine banks to get capital injections, plus six other banks and financial firms embroiled in the financial crisis. In many cases, the firms didn't report enough data to estimate their obligations to executives. As for identifying amounts due individual executives, company filings provided a look at only the top few, and not a full picture of what they were owed. Just as banks aren't the only financial firms getting federal aid amid the crisis, they aren't the only ones facing scrutiny of their compensation programs. Struggling insurer American International Group Inc. agreed to suspend payment of deferred pay for some former top executives pending a review by New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Mr. Cuomo is also demanding to know this year's bonus plans for the first nine banks getting federal cash, as is House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. Among the payouts AIG agreed not to make are disbursements from a $600 million bonus pool for executives of a unit that ran up huge losses with complex financial products. AIG also is suspending $19 million of deferred compensation for Martin Sullivan, whom AIG ousted as chief executive in June. His successor as CEO, Robert Willumstad, who left when the U.S. stepped in to rescue AIG in September, has said he's forgoing $22 million in severance because he wasn't there long enough to execute his strategy for AIG. However, the giant insurer--whose total liability for its executives' deferred pay couldn't be calculated--says most of the managers will receive the compensation. ``Of course, we'll be looking at all these to make sure they're consistent with the requirement of the program,'' said spokesman Nicholas Ashooh. AIG isn't eligible for the government's capital-injection plan, since it's not a bank, but it's getting plenty of U.S. aid of another sort. The Treasury has made $123 billion of credit available, a little more than two-thirds of which MG has borrowed so far. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also don't get in on the capital-injection plan for banks. But under a federal ``conservatorship,'' the Treasury agreed to provide each with up to $100 billion of capital if needed. In return, the government got preferred shares in the firms and the right to acquire nearly 80% of them. Their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, says it will bar golden-parachute severance payouts to the mortgage buyers' ousted chief executives. The executives remain eligible for their pensions. Fannie Mae had a liability of roughly $500 million for executive pensions and deferred compensation at the end of 2007, judging by the size of its deferred tax assets. A spokesman for the firm wouldn't discuss the estimate or whether the executives would get the assets. At Freddie Mac, most will. ``Deferred compensation belongs to the officers who earned it,'' said Shawn Flaherty, a spokeswoman. Indeed, in September Freddie Mac made its deferred- compensation plan more flexible, allowing executives to receive their money earlier than initially spelled out. ``Officers were nervous about market changes,'' said Ms. Flaherty. ``We wanted a retention tool for top talent.'' Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Missouri, be recognized for up to 5 minutes, and that I be recognized for 30 minutes in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I know we have an important piece of legislation that we are going to vote on today. I desperately want to support that legislation. I wish to ask first and most importantly if anyone has the information as to whether the CEOs of Wells Fargo or Bank of America or Citigroup have taken private jets in the last month. Has anyone asked the CEOs of Citigroup, Wells Fargo--all of these financial companies--to take a cut in compensation? Has anyone asked about their workers and how much money they make and whether they are overpaid and whether they are competitive with the salaries of community bankers across the country? Every one of the institutions I named has gotten $15 billion or more of taxpayer money. Think about that for a minute. Citigroup has gotten $50 billion. Have we checked on their private jets? Have we checked on their CEO compensation? Have we checked on their work rules and whether their workers are given enough flexibility? It is unbelievable to me that we are setting this double standard. The thousands of jobs and families who build great American cars do not deserve this incredible hypocrisy in terms of the different treatment they are getting. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I say let's call in those CEOs of those big companies that have gotten more than $15 billion of our money and ask them when they are going to take a dollar in pay, ask them if they got here on a corporate jet, ask them if their workers have cut their pay to $14 an hour, ask them if they have talked about cutting their pension costs and their health care costs. Until we do that, we ought to be quiet about the American autoworkers, and we ought to be quiet about these companies that have reduced fixed costs, that have agreed to sell corporate jets, that have agreed to cut executive compensation. I want to support this bill on behalf of manufacturing in the United States of America, on behalf of wonderful, hard-working families in Missouri. However, there is one problem that has arisen, and that is, unfortunately, in this bill right now, as written, is a provision to increase the pay of Federal judges. Wrong time, wrong place. We have unemployment numbers today that show we have the highest unemployment in this country we have had in decades. We have families all over this Nation who are scared today, who are not buying Christmas presents. Federal judges get lifetime appointments and they never take a dime's cut in pay. They die with the same salary they have today. My phone is ringing off the hook from people who want to be Federal judges. I am having to have staff work overtime to handle all the phone calls I am getting from people who think there may be a Federal judgeship opening in the eastern district of Missouri and how badly accomplished, wonderful, smart lawyers want that Federal appointment. We are not hurting for qualified applicants for the Federal judiciary. Is it fair that they have not gotten a cost-of-living increase like every other Federal employee? Probably not. But you know what is a lot more unfair is to give somebody with a lifetime appointment, great health care, no cut in pay when they actually retire, what is unfair is to give them a pay raise on this day in this bill at this time. It is not the right time. And if it is in the bill, I regrettably will have to vote against this legislation because I feel so strongly that it sends the wrong message to the United States of America at this scary moment in our economic history. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskall). Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10904-2,2008-12-11,110,2,,,DOMESTIC AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10904,S10909,"[{""name"": ""Carl Levin"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""John Warner"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10904,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10904-S10909] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] DOMESTIC AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the bill that has been filed by the chairman [[Page S10905]] of the Banking Committee would do for the U.S. domestic auto industry what governments around the world are doing: providing emergency assistance to their auto industries because their survival is jeopardized by a worldwide recession which has resulted in plunging auto sales. That global recession is not the making of the auto industries around the world, including our own domestic industry. Past mistakes of the big three are not the cause of the worldwide recession and resulting credit freeze. People who want to make large purchases, such as automobiles, are unable to get credit, and 90 percent of the people who buy automobiles buy on credit. Many people simply are afraid to make large-scale financial commitments in these scary economic times. So the U.S. domestic auto industry is not alone in needing loans to make it through the global economic calamity we are in. Look at the rest of the auto-producing world. Here are some headlines in the news recently: ``Facing a Slowdown, China's Auto Industry Presses for a Bailout From Beijing.'' Brazil. ``In Brazil, Whiplash on Assembly Lines.'' ``The Government stepped in with a $3.5 billion aid package for the auto industry by funding banks to boost the amount of credit available for car loans.'' ``European Carmakers Get $50 Billion in Aid.'' ``European governments poised to help their automakers.'' ``Automakers in other nations get more government help. Requests for aid made worldwide''--another headline. These are all headlines in papers across the country. Reuters, ``Spain to support car industry.'' ``France's stimulus plan includes carmakers.'' ``Portugal rolls out loan.'' ``Auto industry faces massive job losses without aid,'' according to the chairman of one of the largest automobile industries--not one of the big three. Now, why are nations around the world stepping in to support their auto industries? It is because of the drastic decline in sales across the industries around the world--not just domestic, not just the big three--leaving no alternative to every other auto-producing country and its government but to support its industry. Hyundai sales are down 40 percent; Toyota sales are down 34 percent; Honda, down 32 percent; Nissan, down 42 percent; Mercedes, down 38 percent. These are not the big three. These are automobile makers around the country that are in the same situation as the big three. But the difference, so far, is that other governments are stepping in. We have not yet stepped in to support our industry. In arguing against these loans for the big three, some continue to describe the domestic companies of the 1970s and 1980s when fuel efficiency was not high on the list of the big three as big three goals or achievements. Some would have us ignore dramatic gains in quality and vastly greater numbers of fuel-efficient vehicles now being offered by the big three. In the area of quality, big three autos are equal to or better than their foreign competitors. For example, the J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scores the overall quality of Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, Mercury, Pontiac, and Lincoln--these are objective, outside studies on quality for those American brands, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, Mercury, Pontiac, and Lincoln--as high or higher than Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, VW, and Volvo. J.D. Power rates the Chevrolet Malibu as the highest quality midsize sedan on the market, and both the Malibu and the Ford Fusion score better than the Honda Accord or the Toyota Camry. On the fuel efficiency side, here are some facts that hopefully colleagues will consider. Long before the credit crisis hit, GM laid the groundwork to offer 15 hybrids by 2012. Thanks to investments they have already made, GM already has 20 models that achieve 30 miles per gallon or better--twice the number of its nearest competitor. All the big three are working to ensure that at least 50 percent of their American production is capable of running on biofuels by 2012. Domestic automakers produce numerous cars that have equal or better fuel efficiency than their foreign competitors. And again, the most fuel efficient Chevy Malibu gets 33 miles per gallon on the highway, which is 2 miles better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel efficiency ratings as the most fuel efficient Toyota Corolla. In the area of productivity, Chrysler tied Toyota as the most productive automaker in North America this year, according to the Harbor Report on Manufacturing, which measures the amount of work done per employee. Eight of the ten most productive vehicle assembly plants in North America belong to Chrysler, Ford, or General Motors. Now, there are also some who want to ignore the reduction in benefits that have been taken already by UAW workers and retirees. In the collective bargaining agreements negotiated in 2005 and 2007, the UAW, along with GM, Ford, and Chrysler, achieved billions of dollars in cost savings and set the companies on the course to bring labor costs, including benefits, in line with their foreign competitors in the United States by 2012. Wages were cut and pension and health care benefits were greatly reduced as well. The UAW is taking responsibility for managing its own retiree health care benefits beginning in 2010 by setting up its own voluntary employee beneficiary association, or VEBA. The VEBA plan will transfer responsibilities for health care benefits for existing employees from companies to an independent trust. This eliminates half of the companies' liabilities for retirees' health care, with billions of dollars of savings. The memory of mistakes made decades ago lingers and remains the impression that many have of the big three despite all the facts I have just outlined. Beliefs are always hard to change. So the facts I have just shared about improved quality and more fuel efficient vehicles and alternative-energy vehicles being produced by the big three may not be readily accepted by people who have beliefs that are to the contrary. But one fact is indisputable and will hopefully influence some who are open to argument: Auto industries around the world are seeking the support of their governments through loans and other methods and are getting it. I went through that series of headlines, from Brazil to Europe, all the way to China. The Chinese automobile industry is asking for loans from the Chinese Government. No other auto-producing country that I know of in the world is failing to act to make sure its industry is alive when the deep global recession is over, and we shouldn't either. There is also a national security aspect to the American auto industry, and I wish to spend some time on this because there was testimony that was prepared for delivery to the Banking Committee when they met on this subject by the Director of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, called TARDEC. So this is the Army R&D and engineering center. It is located in Macomb County, MI. TARDEC develops, integrates, and sustains the right technology solutions for all of our manned and unmanned Department of Defense ground vehicle systems and combat support systems in order to improve force effectiveness and provide superior capabilities for the future forces of this country. The Director of TARDEC is Grace Bochenek. Because of the security importance of what I am going to relate, I am going to read from her prepared testimony, and this is going to take some time. I am going to read from her prepared testimony, though it wasn't actually delivered. It ended up that they had too many witnesses, and so she wasn't invited, but this testimony is a compelling story of the continuing relationship between the big three, the domestic auto industry, and our U.S. Army vehicle program. We all look back--some of us nostalgically--to what Detroit did during World War II. That is the past. There is a present which is critically important in terms of the security of this country. Some have pointed out the need to have a manufacturing base in order to quickly expand in the case of need, and that is a powerful argument--a national security argument for keeping our big three auto industry around the way other countries keep their auto industries around. Some other colleagues [[Page S10906]] have pointed out in some detail the relationship between the suppliers of the big three and the suppliers of vehicles for the Army and how much trouble those suppliers would be in--these are Army vehicle suppliers--if the big three did not survive, and that is another powerful national security argument. But I am going to focus on what Grace Bochenek focused on, the Director of TARDEC, which is the relationships, the synergies that exist between the big three now and the Army in terms of current products and current technologies which are inserted into our vehicles and future technologies which are being developed as we speak. I am going to quote from her testimony, and this will all be quotes except where I insert my own words, which I will try to make clear. But this will be a long quote, for those who are listening to this testimony and, hopefully, reading it. The synergies between TARDEC and the U.S. automotive industry and the collective challenges we face. TARDEC's connection to the automotive industry dates back to 1947, when the Tank Automotive Components Laboratories, now known as TARDEC, was established. The level of cooperation between the Army and the auto industry was strengthened by the Secretary of the Army's charter of the National Automotive Center, NAC, in 1992 to champion the development of dual-use automotive technologies and their application to military ground vehicles. Today, the NAC remains the connective piece and continues to engage through many different mechanisms to leverage the capabilities, skills, and facilities of the automotive industry. Referring to the Department of Defense and the domestic automobile industry, she continued: For the past 70 years, we have shared common research goals, leveraged investments in technology, mutually benefitted from those technical developments, and collectively owned the responsibility for our Nation's next generation of automotive engineers and scientists. Technologies may have changed, but the importance of working together to collectively drive innovation has not. The Army's specific challenges are as follows: First, significantly increasing fuel efficiency to reduce the logistics burden on our troops. In some cases, fuel is 70 percent of the bulk tonnage that we take to war. Second, substantially increasing electric power available on the battlefield and developing the next generation of electronic warfare tools. Third, increasing soldier protection through the development and application of advanced light-weight material solutions. Fourth, utilizing sensor technology throughout our vehicle platforms to collect prognostic data allowing for overall improved reliability and reduced sustainment costs. Fifth, engaging the enemy without putting soldiers in harm's way through the fielding of unmanned systems. Another word for that is robotics. Continuing now with Grace Bochenek's prepared testimony. Often the only difference between military and commercial automotive technologies is a matter of scale both with regard to the market (quantity) and component durability (military specifications). The goals and the technologies leading to their accomplishment, however, remain very similar. Our motivations may differ, but our technological goals are shared ones. Both the Army and the automotive industry seek to achieve technical advances in the areas of power and energy, vehicle intelligence, robotics, safety, advanced lightweight materials and leading-edge manufacturing methods. Then she goes into examples in each of those areas, where there is a working together, a cooperation, a synergy between the American automobile industry and the Army vehicle program. She continues: In 1997, TARDEC began a commercially based tactical truck program focused on leveraging GM, Ford and Chrysler's commercial truck platforms to meet some of the military's light tactical vehicle requirements. Chrysler and GM provided hybrid electric vehicles that included start-stop operation and vehicle exportable power providing TARDEC with information critical to defining future requirements. A Cooperative Research & Development Agreement (CRADA) between Ford and TARDEC launched the development of a thermal management software modeling tool. This further matured under multiple Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts utilizing tri-service investment. The dual use software produced has been fully commercialized and is now sold worldwide by one of the SBIR, recipients, resulting in a new Michigan business with revenues of about $10M per year. Ford's initial investment was absolutely critical in the development of this world class product the application of which has also become the Army, Navy, and Air Force standard. This is an example of how an Automotive OEM--TARDEC partnership was able to leverage resources to create jobs and develop useful technologies. TARDEC continues to partner with automotive industry OEMs and suppliers on advanced powertrain technologies including fuel cell technologies, power and thermal management, and advanced automotive batteries all of which are necessary for the next generation of military systems. TARDEC leverages fuel cell developments primarily through the automotive supplier base with companies such as Ballard, Delphi, and United Technologies. TARDEC also has a longstanding relationship with General Motors in the demonstration and evaluation of light duty commercial fuel cell vehicles. This program has allowed TARDEC to assess multiple generations of fuel cell technologies. Batteries are critical to implementing advanced automotive powertrains. As such, there is a growing body of collaborative work between TARDEC, the automotive OEMs, and their suppliers. The cornerstone of TARDEC's efforts in this area is the development of manufacturing technologies needed to mass-produce high power and energy density Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) batteries--particularly critical for the Army's Future Combat Systems platforms. Additionally, there are many ongoing military battery technology development efforts that leverage emerging automotive battery technology providers such as Al23, AltairNano, Boston Power, GS Yuasa, Inanovation, EnerDel, EnerSys, Firefly, Kokam America, Quallion, and SAFT America. With the help of the Automotive OEMs and the Department of Energy, TARDEC is escalating efforts to define the boundaries for dual-use commercial and military applications of advanced battery technologies through the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium. Additionally, General Motors is supporting TARDEC advanced battery requirements through direct, individual collaboration through a CRADA and an additional newly awarded contract. TARDEC and the automotive OEMs have both identified advanced automotive batteries as a key area for collaboration going forward. In the support of expanding collaboration in advanced batteries, TARDEC has worked with the automotive OEMs and suppliers of battery technologies to assess the scope of effort around establishing a robust, diverse manufacturing base for advanced automotive batteries. This effort recently culminated in a two-day Battery Summit, which involved over 70 participants from industry and government. Discussions covered the technology, policy and manufacturing implications of having a domestic base for the manufacture of advanced batteries. TARDEC intends to continue to work with key stakeholders to identify near term opportunities in the area. Vehicle Intelligence The Army faces high operating and support costs in its aging fleet of vehicles. Currently the Army reduces this heavy cost burden through periodic scheduled inspections and sustainment efforts. To further reduce this cost burden, the Army must move towards an intelligent vehicle architecture. Both the Army and the automotive industry have vested interest in enhancing their platforms by providing predictive maintenance enhancements through prognostic capabilities. This requires equipping vehicles with computing devices, sensors, middleware, and wireless infrastructure. Through these enabling technologies, vehicle intelligence is made possible. This could ultimately enhance operational readiness and reduce lifecycle maintenance costs for ground vehicle platforms by reducing the heavy cost burden of periodic scheduled inspections and automating the supply chain to proactively provision for part replacements to optimize the maintenance repair process. Vehicle intelligence is also an enabling technology for Condition Based Maintenance and (vehicle) Health Monitoring technologies. It is related to existing developments in the commercial automotive industry such as the installation of electronic control units (ECU) and electronic control modules (ECM), computing devices, and sensors. These devices facilitate diagnostic analysis at the vehicle subsystem level. This in-vehicle network provides the ability to diagnose such components as the powertrain, ABS, and critical safety systems. GM Diagnostics has taken this a step further by enabling cellular transmission of data off platform for off-board analysis and status updates through their OnStar system. The Army is working with commercial automotive partners to develop this technology for military use via secured communication pipelines. Robotics--now she addresses robotics in her prepared testimony. I am going into this at some length because what has not been focused on enough in this debate is the security implication of the failure of the big three. There has been a lot of discussion about why it is essential that we not allow the big three to go under in terms of this economy. But what has not yet been focused on specifically, other than general statements about the connection, the current and future connection, is the essential synergy between the big three and the Army particularly but also the military in general. People's minds tend to go back and say that was all World War II, that was all the ``arsenal of democracy,'' and yes, it was, and we are proud of it. But [[Page S10907]] it is also 2008, 2010, 2015, 2020. What kind of equipment our troops will have will depend upon whether we have the kind of connection between our military and our commercial worlds. In the area of vehicles, to disconnect that connection, to rip it apart, to allow the big three to go under, has a massive negative security impact on this country and on the well-being and survival of America's troops. She goes on: robotics, unmanned systems The U.S. Army has a long history of working with the automotive industry on the development of enabling technologies for manned and unmanned systems. Unmanned systems are key resources for our fighting men and women in the Global War on Terrorism. Many of the key technologies currently used on ground robots have their start in cooperative programs between the U.S. Army and the Big 3 Automotive and their tier suppliers. The Army and the automotive companies have several aligned activities in unmanned systems. For example, the Army has several overriding objectives we are trying to achieve for the development and deployment of future unmanned vehicle systems. Primary among these goals are Safe Operations (Safe Ops) and Total Situational Awareness (SA) around the vehicles, necessary because a robot operates by sensing the environment around it at any given moment. Safe Ops and 360 degree SA are also critical for the safe operation of passenger cars on automated highways, which means our goals are aligned perfectly with the programs in the auto industry. Recently, both GM and Ford participated in the series of DARPA Autonomous Vehicle Grand Challenges. The 1st Grand Challenge was held at the California Motor Speedway and it tested the ability of vehicles to move autonomously over structured roads. The 2nd Grand Challenge was a 170 mile cross-country road race in the deserts of Nevada. The 3rd and final challenge, called the DARPA Urban Challenge (DUC), was designed to push the state-of-the-art in autonomous navigation in urban environments, where each competitor had to obey the rules of the road and contend with other robots and driven cars. Many of these robust automotive sensing methodologies are being transitioned to Army programs for integration into both manned and unmanned systems. In every one of these competitions both Ford and GM partnered with leading universities in the U.S. to put together winning teams that finished in the top 5 percent of race finishers (the GM-Carnegie-Mellon team won the DUC in 2007). The close coupling of robotic sensors, actuators and intelligence was enhanced by the collaboration of automotive engineers at the OEMs. Then she goes on with her description of safety issues. There are multiple overlapping safety goals between the commercial automotive industry and the military ground vehicle fleet. Just as injury risk mitigation and thorough modeling and simulation of technologies is important to the commercial automotive manufacturers; these precautions must be taken to reduce the impact to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. Automotive industry OEMs and key suppliers have worked with TARDEC in the development of advanced modeling and simulation efforts to characterize occupant impact during rollover and side impact crashes. TARDEC recently developed ground- breaking full vehicle underbody blast models and methodologies to both accurately predict occupant injury during an energetic event such as a mine/IED blast, and to develop new countermeasures. This effort would not have been possible without heavy leveraging of automotive tools and methodologies from the automotive crashworthiness area. TARDEC's commercial partners have also been critical in advanced technology product development, testing and validation, design studies, and developmental tests. Finally TARDEC relies on the commercial partners for prototyping and large quantity manufacturing capabilities. Advanced lightweight materials is the next subject that she took up in her prepared testimony. One of TARDEC's mandates is to research, develop, engineer, and to leverage lean, agile, advanced manufacturing technologies used by the U.S. Auto Industry, Academia, and other segments of the U.S. Industrial Base. This is accomplished through partnerships and contracts with manufacturers, suppliers, and universities, taking advantage of manufacturing capabilities developed to service the high volume needs of the auto industry and adapt the technologies for manufacturing the low volume production of military components. With the auto industry leading the charge, TARDEC is pursuing several advanced manufacturing processes such as friction stir welding, laser additive and subtractive manufacturing, flexible manufacturing cells using robotics, and water-based environmentally safe painting processes. Then she addresses automotive expertise, knowledge, and education. To maintain technological superiority now and in the future, we need top quality scientists and automotive engineers in our workforce. Alongside the automotive industry, we have always had a shared commitment and felt the collective responsibility to develop the next generation of engineers, and recognized the challenge to do so. TARDEC has long recognized that a scientifically and technologically literate citizenry is our Nation's best hope for a diverse, talented, and productive workforce. To achieve this goal, we have partnered with the automotive industry and universities to develop curriculum that will benefit both TARDEC and the American automotive original equipment manufacturers. We have also been able to address this challenge through our Automotive Research Center, which has created ways for us to partner with universities and allow students the opportunity to develop and work on relevant automotive engineering challenges. Over the years, the automotive industry has made significant contributions to the Army through technology exchange processes available in the ARC [which is the Automotive Research Center]. And in recent years, an increased emphasis on research involving high mileage, low polluting vehicles, as well as the new high technology needs for large trucks, off-road vehicles and robots has provided invaluable data and resources for us towards the Army's long term transformation goals and objectives. In 2007 and 2008, TARDEC supported 52 ARC research projects spanning Power, Mobility, Survivability, Modeling and Simulation technology areas. Ford, Chrysler and General Motors and at least 12 Tier-1 suppliers provided their resources and expertise towards 36 of the 52 research projects. The remaining projects had industry involvement from Tier-2 and Tier-3 suppliers such as large software companies, industry consultants and automotive small businesses. The fact remains [and I will conclude with this] that the need for partnerships and the consistent leveraging of resources is critical for continued innovation, technological breakthroughs. American automotive original equipment manufacturers partnership with TARDEC in events such as [then she lists a whole lot of events] inspires young engineers to consider careers in math and science and helps to develop many needed automotive skill with applicability in DOD's ``real'' workforce environments. Automotive industry support has been crucial in developing the educational infrastructure that has allowed the development of an automotive engineering talent base here in the United States. And that talent base will be central to future efforts to create a safer Nation and a robust manufacturing environment. At this time, when we have to [these are her last words] at this time, when we have to break the dependency on foreign oil, provide energy security for the Nation, and increase soldier protection, it becomes even more critical, [even more critical] to leverage investments, exchange technical ideas to drive innovation, and provide the breakthroughs that are necessary to maintain the dominance of the American military. I very much appreciate the time that I have taken to share with this body the statement of the head of the organization in the Army which is responsible for the technologies in current vehicles and future vehicles. I have done this because there is kind of yet the unstated critical need for the survival of the big three. The stakes for our economy nationally are huge. The failure of the big three would send a tsunami through this already battered economy. Millions of workers would lose their jobs. Dealers in every town and on every Main Street are already reeling from the economy's plunge. Automotive component suppliers, who are in fully half our States, are on the knife's edge already, waiting for us to act. Men and women who work for steel mills and textile factories and glass factories and computer chip factories are waiting and hoping. The financial industry would be at risk as well. A collapsed auto industry would lead to defaults on over $1 billion in corporate bonds, credit default swaps and other financial instruments tied to the auto industry and could send the stock market into another, deeper tailspin. Major additional damage to U.S. financial institution balance sheets would result, throwing our credit markets into even deeper turmoil. Despite these facts, there are still some who say, ``let them go bankrupt, let them go under,'' even though 1 in 10 jobs in this country are tied to the auto industry. In addition to hoping that they will ask themselves why no other government is allowing that to happen to their auto industry, I would also hope they would listen to some experts on the subject of bankruptcy for the auto industry. A recent report released by J.P. Morgan titled, ``Cost of the Alternative,'' described the scenario where one or [[Page S10908]] more of the Big Three are left to file for bankruptcy as ``Credit Crisis Part II.'' It indicated that unemployment would shoot up by 2 percent if one of the Big Three failed, and this failure scenario would require the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to take over more than $100 billion in obligations that the Big Three currently hold. It noted that Ford and GM and their financial arms ``comprise over 10% of the high-yield bond market and the auto sector represents one of the largest sectors in leverage finance for banks.'' Another recent report by the Anderson Economic Group and BBK calculated the costs in the first year following the failure of two of the Big Three. Such a scenario would cost States $12 billion in tax revenues; it would cost the Federal Government $40 billion in income and Social Security taxes, and it would cost an additional $8 billion in unemployment insurance and $5 billion in significantly increased costs to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. The report indicates a high risk that inaction by Congress would result in a permanent shift of manufacturing jobs out of the United States and a dependence on foreign technology. Mr. President, these are risks we cannot take. We must pass this legislation. Without this legislation, one or more of the Big Three will likely collapse in the coming weeks. The U.S. taxpayers would provide a bridge loan to avoid this catastrophe under this bill, but with important protections for their investment, including stock warrants for the Government; limits on excessive executive compensation; a prohibition on golden parachutes; and a prohibition on payments of dividends until the loans are fully repaid. And the so- called auto czar has the ultimate power under this legislation to enforce compliance with the long-term plans of the auto companies that accept these loans: he can call or cancel the loans if he disapproves the auto companies' restructuring plans. We cannot afford to further destabilize Wall Street, and we cannot afford to allow millions of jobs on Main Streets in communities across the country to disappear. The domino effect of failure would ripple across our entire Nation and add untold suffering to an already dire situation. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I wanted to focus on an aspect of this debate that has not achieved adequate attention. That is the tight, important connection between our domestic auto industry and the future security of this Nation and our men and women in uniform. We have no greater responsibility than that. That factor, that synergy, that relationship, that connection, is an essential component of this debate. I hope when our colleagues look at all of the factors, they will consider that important reason for sustaining and supporting an automobile industry in this country. Again, no other Nation is allowing their automotive industry to go down in this global economic disaster we are all in. They have all taken steps to support their industry. We should too, for many reasons. But one of those reasons, one of the most important reasons we are here in the Senate is to make sure that our men and women in uniform always have the best equipment that can be produced in the world. They put their lives at risk. They are entitled to every advanced technology we can give them. Part of the production of those technologies the big three is playing today, tomorrow, and hopefully in the future, is a critical role. Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator entertain a question? Mr. LEVIN. I did not see my dear friend from Virginia come to the floor. I wish I had, because I wanted to put those parts of my remarks--and they were lengthy, but at a time when he might be hearing them either here or in his office. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we had the opportunity to speak on this subject earlier today. And I reminded my good friend of the extraordinary chapter in American history that was performed by the industrial base in your State and elsewhere across America under the leadership and guidance of those companies manufacturing automobiles after Pearl Harbor, I mean who were in the business of manufacturing at the time of Pearl Harbor. They shut those lines down very quickly and turned to full military production. That is a great chapter in American history. And, fortunately, I am old enough to remember it quite well as a young man. But today, it is a different industrial base in the automobile industry. Whereas they had a very dominant position in the production of vehicles, particularly tanks, and they did some aircraft and so forth, that has given way to the high-tech aspects which the Senator from Michigan addresses here on the floor for the benefit of our colleagues. That is a great chapter in American history. I would hope this Nation would never again be faced with as serious a problem as it was in World War II, namely that we had let our Armed Forces get down to very small levels and the equipment was old and tired. You remember the pictures that they used broomsticks to practice their military maneuvers with and the Model T and Model A automobiles that were used for tanks. But that chapter reflects the potential of not just the companies themselves but the workers and how quickly they took their knowledge and their skilled hands to swing into action and produce the war materials that we needed very quickly. Today our military is much stronger, well equipped, thanks to the distinguished chairman and others who have served with us on that committee. I think the likelihood of our Nation ever being confronted with a conflict that would have to require that enormous buildup is not, hopefully not there, but nevertheless we should remember that chapter. It documents the capabilities of the workers and the families in this industry. I think you pointed with great pride to that era. I might add to my colleague's comment, he closed by asking all Senators to consider this very carefully. As I finish up my 30 years, I have been to a lot of Republican caucuses. We had one yesterday at noon. We just completed another. And the gravity of this issue is reflected in the gravity of the careful, very careful consideration being given by every member in our caucus. I can tell you that without any question. I am not suggesting exactly which way they are going to go. But I know that they have the best interests of the country in mind, and the gravity of the situation is enormous. You can detect it as you hear the colloquies going on on our side. I am sure the same is taking place the Senator's. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my dear friend from Virginia. This will probably be, we keep saying, the last opportunity we have to speak with each other on the floor of the Senate. It may be, it may not be, as it turns out. But I know of no Member of this body who has put the interests of this Nation more deeply in his heart than the Senator from Virginia. There are others who probably share that with him; I know there are, but the focus which I gave here today outlining the current relationship between the big three and the technologies that are embedded right now in our vehicles, and the effort in a collaborative way between our domestic automobile industry and our Army vehicle industry, to give us lighter vehicles, more survivable vehicles, crashworthy vehicles, vehicles that use less gasoline, vehicles that have the global positioning devices that can say exactly where they are and communicate that, these technologies are embedded now and will continue hopefully to always be at the forefront, at the cutting edge of technology to give our troops what I know the Senator from Virginia has devoted his life to; that is, to giving our troops every edge we can. The big three not only has been part of that on the vehicles, as the Senator notably points out in terms of looking back, but that is the current situation--deep connections, synergies, collaboration going on as we speak, and planned for the years ahead. If we rip apart that connection, by allowing the big three to go under, that tremendous capability they have to join with the Army on vehicles, particularly, will be rendered useless or will no longer exist. That would be a terrible tragedy for our Nation's security. Again, I am glad my great friend from Virginia was able to come to the [[Page S10909]] floor to share with me some thoughts about this relationship that is not only historical and one which we take great pride in as a nation, that ability to quickly expand, to turn a manufacturing, an industrial base into an arsenal of democracy. That hopefully will not happen, as the Senator points out. Maybe it is less likely to happen. But we must be there when it does. That aspect has been focused on by others, the need to be able to have a manufacturing base for our national security and to have a base of suppliers for our national security. I have tried to add another aspect to this argument that points to the relationship between the survival of our big three and our national security by pointing out the ongoing relationship in the area of research and development, which has produced critically important technologies currently in our vehicles and developing today the technologies which will make future vehicles. Mr. WARNER. Our military vehicles. Mr. LEVIN. Absolutely. Mr. WARNER. I wish to make that clear because that technology has been available in the open market to those manufacturers, other than the oil industry, which have, in a remarkable way, taken these up- armored vehicles, that general category we have today, very quickly, to the great credit of the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, he put together a structure of five companies to get into immediate production of those vehicles and into those vehicles has gone the development and technology that our distinguished colleague from Michigan has described. Mr. LEVIN. Thankfully, we still have a few colleagues, including the great Senator from Virginia, who have a personal connection to that war. Mr. WARNER. It was very minor, but it was a privilege to have been associated with that generation. Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Virginia. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10904,2008-12-11,110,2,,,ORDER FOR RECESS,SENATE,SENATE,SRECESS,S10904,S10904,"[{""name"": ""Carl Levin"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10904,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10904] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] ORDER FOR RECESS Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senate stand in recess until 3 p.m. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10909-2,2008-12-11,110,2,,,EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10909,S10909,"[{""name"": ""Barbara A. Mikulski"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10909,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10909] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for the transaction of morning business be extended until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10909-3,2008-12-11,110,2,,,SILO TAX SHELTER,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10909,S10913,"[{""name"": ""Max Baucus"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Chuck Grassley"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Jim Bunning"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10909,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10909-S10913] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] SILO TAX SHELTER Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the House bill before us contains a provision that causes me great concern. The provision would make the U.S. Government an active participant in an abusive tax shelter transaction. In the past, Congress has voted to shut that tax shelter down. And this week, I sought to offer an amendment to strike the provision from this bill. But I have been prevented from offering that amendment. That this provision will remain in the bill makes this bill a far less attractive measure. Section 18 of the bill requires the United States to serve as a guarantor of obligations incurred by domestic subway and other transportation systems. These obligations arise from the systems' participation in leasing arrangements called lease in/lease out, or LILOs, and sale in/lease out, or SILOs. LILOs and SILOs are sham transactions. The IRS has designated them as ``listed'' tax shelters. That means that these tax shelters are among the most egregious abuses of the tax law. LILOs and SILOs are very complicated deals, designed to look like legitimate leasing transactions. But in reality, they are shams. In a SILO, a tax-exempt entity nominally ``sells'' an asset, like a subway system. The other party to the deal is an investor who is subject to taxation and who needs a tax write-off. The investor nominally ``buys'' the asset. The investor then nominally ``leases'' the asset back to the tax-exempt entity. In truth, the benefits and burdens of ownership never shift. And the sale and the lease have no economic reality. These parties purport to make purchase payments and rent payments. But in reality, these payments are just paper entries, facilitated by a bank that is in on the deal. The investor pays the tax exempt entity an up-front fee in exchange for its willingness to participate in the deal. But other than that, no real money changes hands. There is little, if any, risk to any party to these transactions. That is because the deal is cooked from the beginning. It is planned so as to eliminate any risk. But there are significant tax benefits to the investor. The investor gets interest and depreciation deductions. And those deductions generate tax losses. Employing these tax losses, the investor pays less tax on income that the investor earns elsewhere. This chart illustrates how a SILO transaction works. You do not have to understand all the details to see how complicated the transaction is. As Chairman of the Finance Committee, I have had these deals on my radar screen for quite some time. In 2003, the Finance Committee held a hearing with a confidential informant. The witness risked his professional reputation to tell us how abusive LILO and SILO transactions are. I pushed for legislation to shut these deals down. The 2004 Jobs Act eliminated the tax benefits for most of the investors who had entered into these transactions. Since 2005, I have worked to shut down the remaining deals that the Jobs Act failed to address. Unfortunately, our efforts have met with resistance. Some argue that shutting down these transactions would be applying law retroactively. But I believe that these transactions always violated the law, as they lack any economic substance. In the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, Congress imposed excise taxes on tax-exempt entities and their managers who entered into tax shelter transactions. That law recognized the role that some tax exempt entities, including transit agencies, played as ``accommodating parties'' to tax shelter deals. Since 1999, the IRS has devoted considerable resources to shutting down these deals. The IRS has designated both LILOs and SILOs as ``listed'' tax shelter transactions. The IRS has audited every one of these transactions that it could find. The IRS has litigated four cases, and won every time. Recently, the IRS announced a settlement initiative to shut down the remaining cases and reports an 80-percent participation rate. We have been trying to stop these tax shelters for years. So how does the Government end up guaranteeing this kind of tax shelter? The complicated structure of LILOs and SILOs plays a part. Under the terms of the agreements, transit agencies are required to obtain a guarantee from an insurer. The insurer guarantees that the agencies will be able to buy back the subway at the end of the lease period. The agreements require that the insurer have a very high credit rating. The current economic crisis has caused downgrades of insurers' credit ratings. That has put the tax-exempt entities into technical default on their agreements. Under the agreements, when the tax-exempt entities default, the investors have a right to terminate the lease. The investors are taking advantage of this legal opportunity. They are trying to cash in. The investors are attempting not just to recoup the nominal purchase price of the assets. They are also demanding that the transit agencies pay over the value of the tax benefits that the investor will lose as a result of the premature unwinding of [[Page S10910]] the deal. The value of the tax benefits can be many times the putative purchase price. This chart that I referred to earlier is an exhibit from a lawsuit, Hoosier Energy v. John Hancock Life Insurance. In that case, the Monroe County Circuit Court in Indiana issued a temporary injunction barring John Hancock from collecting on the technical default. Transit agencies do not have lots of excess money just sitting around. So they have come to the Congress asking for a guarantee from the U.S. Government. Now I do not want our Nation's subway systems to be at risk. I am open to considering ways to help keep them financially sound. But I am unwilling to do so at the expense of American taxpayers. The bill before us today asks taxpayers to put their tax dollars at risk. The bill asks taxpayers to guarantee transit agencies who knowingly and willfully entered into deals that had no economic substance and were designed for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes. The Government has come under much criticism for actions it has taken to jump-start our economy. But deliberately involving the U.S. Government in a tax shelter scam would add fuel to that fire. We must not add legitimacy to an abusive transaction that the Congress, the courts, the Treasury, and the IRS have spent years trying to shut down. We must not undermine the good efforts of the IRS to prosecute these cases. We need the IRS to accomplish as much work as it can to eliminate these and other scams. We must not ask American taxpayers who struggle to pay their taxes to underwrite deals set up to help wealthy investors attempting to shelter their income. The approach in the bill before us today is not a solution. Stepping in to guarantee these deals exposes American taxpayers to ongoing risk. Some event could trigger a requirement that the Government pay the investors. This bill puts taxpayers on the hook for a long time. In addition, I understand that this proposal applies to only 80 percent of the transit agencies that entered into these tax shelter deals. What about the other 20 percent of the systems who are not covered? What happens to them? We need a fair and balanced approach to resolve this issue. We would do better to figure out a way to discourage investors from acting on the technical default simply because the insurer's credit rating has been downgraded. A downgrade does not mean that the insurer is not good for the money. I intend to explore options with this goal in mind. We need a solution that protects both the transit agencies and the American taxpayer. Finally, this is an auto bill. We should not forfeit the opportunity to bolster our automotive industry by cluttering up the bill with unrelated and controversial proposals. There is a proper time and place for everything. This is neither the time nor the place to divert attention from our immediate task, helping our automakers. This provision has no business in the auto bill. The Senate should take the provision out. And if the Senate does not take the provision out, it will only add to the burdens that are weighing this bill down. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to back up the chairman of the committee, Senator Baucus, who has spoken on the very same issue. We have had a close working relationship for 8 years as either chairman and ranking member, and those changed from time to time. Part of our effort of working together has been to close down abusive tax shelters. So I am here to support what he said and to say, in my own words, my reasons for wanting this provision out of the bill. The bottom line of what I am saying is the bottom line of what Senator Baucus has already said. This tax provision has no business being in this bill. There is a provision in this auto bailout bill that deals with a number of transit agencies that assisted corporations in tax shelters. This provision in the auto bailout bill has nothing to do with automakers. It would prop up a tax shelter that Senator Baucus and I shut down in the year 2004. Shutting down that tax shelter saved American taxpayers $26.56 billion, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. That is real money. So we should be very protective of making sure money that by subterfuge was not going to come into the Federal Treasury comes back to the Federal Treasury and is not used in the future. This tax shelter is commonly referred to as sale-in, lease-out, or by the acronym SILO, or another program lease- in, lease-out that we refer to by the acronym LILO. This tax shelter bailout within the automaker bailout bill would have the Federal Government guarantee obligations that public transit agencies now face because they entered into shady deals with corporations, including foreign corporations, where they sold things such as the transit agencies' own train cars and then magically leased them back from these corporations to do what they were doing all the time anyway, hauling people. This was not done to change the way the transit agency operated but, instead, to collect a fee for assisting the tax shelter, where the corporations could take advantage of the tax deduction for depreciation of things such as these train cars. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 2004, I worked hard to shut down these tax shelters as a matter of tax fairness, and Senator Baucus was there working closely with me to do that. The Internal Revenue Service has been working to recover money from these deals. If this tax shelter bailout were to pass, it would interfere with the working of the IRS in these efforts to collect money that should never have been deducted in the first place. This tax shelter bailout can change the cost-benefit analysis for those tax shelter corporations that are considering settling their disputes with the IRS over the SILO/LILO tax shelters. It is wrong for the auto bailout bill to bail out transit agencies from participating in these shady tax shelters. The Federal Government should not guarantee the transit agencies' obligations to corporations, including foreign corporations, when doing so allows the tax shelter to continue as it did before 2004, and these corporations, including foreign corporations, to continue taking tax shelter deductions for things such as transit agencies' train cars. If the Federal Government is called upon to pay the guarantees of the transit agencies' obligations to these tax shelter corporations, including foreign tax shelter corporations, then the hardworking U.S. taxpayer will be sending money directly to these foreign corporations and others. I don't know how many, but we know foreign corporations are very much involved. These tax shelters were, in fact, set up so corporations were able to take large depreciation deductions. However, the tax shelter needed a nontaxpaying entity that had large amounts of assets that could be depreciated. So that is where the transit agencies come in. The transit agencies were paid millions of dollars to do nothing, simply sign papers and go about business as usual of transiting people within cities or between cities, as they were doing before this tax shelter was ever thought up. The transit agencies are called accommodation parties in tax shelter lingo. They are called this because, in exchange for their fee, they helped make tax shelters work for corporations that were bilking the U.S. taxpayers out of billions of dollars, and those billions of dollars were lost revenue to the Federal Treasury. This auto bailout bill proposes to bail out the transit agencies from the consequences of their bad judgment of entering into tax shelters. I say ``bad judgment'' because they ought to know this doesn't make sense. Some lawyer might tell you: We can get by with this because we found this loophole in the tax laws. But, in fact, lawyers can find anything. The English language is not so perfect that we write perfect pieces of legislation that somebody who is wise can't find a way around. That is what happened prior to 2004, before Senator Baucus and I shut it down. As the transit agencies have found out--and that is why they are coming to the bailout bill for some help--when [[Page S10911]] you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Now that the transit agencies have fleas due to their participation in this tax shelter scheme, they want the Federal Government to be their flea remover. If this provision is enacted and if the Federal Government guarantees the transit agencies' tax shelter obligations, it will actually help these shady tax shelter deals stay alive longer and, who knows, encourage more of this in the future. We are trying to shut down a business I consider illicit, people going through the Tax Code and seeing where they can find a tax loophole and writing a program and go out and sell it. They go out and sell it to somebody else, then flee to the woods, and some corporation or individual has to defend it themselves, and they can't. They get stuck with the tax bill from the IRS. We want to shut down the tax shelter-writing business. I will not help the transit agencies avoid the consequences of their participation in these tax shelters. I do not want to put U.S. taxpayer money on the line to support tax shelters that have been stealing from these same taxpayers. I am aware that as early as February 2000, we had a Federal initiative from the executive branch. In the year 2000, the Federal Transit Administration, under the Clinton administration, used to advocate these tax shelter deals to transit agencies as innovative financing. The Federal Transit Administration's promotion of these tax shelters was shameful, and it gave a legitimacy to it. I suppose it even encouraged further tax shelter people to write. But in 2004, Senator Baucus and I said: Enough is enough. That is why the legislation was passed in 2004, shutting down these and saving the taxpayers that $25 billion the Joint Committee on Taxation said could be saved; in other words, paid into the Federal Treasury, instead of some sharp lawyer finding a way to keep it out of the Federal Treasury. Going back to when these were first being instituted by the Federal agency or encouraged by the Federal agency, we did have the IRS responding to that. So you had one agency promoting something. You had the IRS issue a revenue ruling that came out against these tax shelters. But between that 1999 March 1 date and the time Senator Baucus and I finally concluded this needed to stop in 2004, we still had a bunch of these deals consummated. Even if the transit agencies were not aware of the IRS's position, the transit agencies should have realized that getting money for essentially doing nothing ought to be too good to be true. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is not the right thing to do. That is common advocacy to any consumer in America met by some snake oil salesman who comes along to sell a product. If it sounds too good to be true, you ought to raise questions about it. We even have a situation where every court that has considered these transactions has ruled they are abusive tax shelters and has not allowed the tax breaks claimed by the corporation that engaged in the tax shelters. Three of these court cases are BB&T Corporation, the Fifth Third Bancorp, and AWG Leasing Trust. In a recent court opinion involving John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Chief Judge David Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana wrote that the SILO deal at issue was ``pure, abusive tax shelter,'' was ``rotten to the core'' and was ``a sham without economic substance.'' Additionally, in February 2004, Senator Baucus and this Senator sent letters to Washington, DC, New York City, and Chicago transit agencies asking for their assistance in an investigation of these abusive tax shelters. I ask unanimous consent that these three letters be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: February 12, 2004. Richard A. White, CEO, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 600 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC. Dear Mr. White: We are writing to enlist the assistance of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in our ongoing investigation of abusive tax shelters. On October 21, 2003, the Committee on Finance held a hearing regarding the continuing proliferation of abusive tax shelters. During that hearing, we learned that shelter promoters are engaging in transactions with U.S. municipalities and other state and local governmental units, which allow major U.S. corporations to depreciate state and local infrastructure assets, such as railways, subways, dams, water lines, and air traffic control systems. Our subsequent investigations have disclosed that federal agencies have endorsed these transactions, even though the Department of the Treasury had classified them as abusive tax shelters. Under this scheme, municipalities are paid an up-front cash fee to enter into a long-term lease of their infrastructure to the tax shelter promoters. The cash received by the municipality, however, pales in comparison to the federal tax benefits received by the corporations, which will be able to depreciate taxpayer-funded bridges, subways, and rail systems as a result of the lease. As part of the same agreement, the promoters will agree to simultaneously lease the assets back to the municipality. The obligations of the promoters and municipalities are prepaid through ``phantom'' debt, and neither the tax promoters nor the municipality assumes any credit or ownership risk. At the end of the lease term, the infrastructure assets revert back to the municipality. In reality, nothing changes regarding the ownership or use of the infrastructure. One municipal manager described these transactions as ``People giving him money which he never had to pay back, for doing something that he was already doing.'' In March 1999, the Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration initiated enforcement actions against these transactions, which are called LILOs--an abbreviation of their industry name ``lease-in-lease-out'' transactions. We have further learned that these transactions have continued, albeit in a different form, and that other federal agencies may be approving these transactions. The LILO transactions have now been replicated through service agreement contracts and transactions called SILOs--``sales- in-lease-out.'' Other variations on these transactions have involved qualified technology equipment (QTEs). We are certain that you share my concern that subway systems, water lines, waste treatment plants, and air traffic control systems constructed with taxpayer dollars are being used by big corporations to shelter billions of dollars in taxes through bogus depreciation deductions. In order to assist us in assessing the scope and scale of this problem, I request that the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority submit to the Committee on Finance copies of all LILOs, SILOS, QTEs, and similar transactions that have been approved, funded, or otherwise reviewed by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority from the year 1995 to present. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Ed McClellan or Matt Genasci of the Senate Finance Committee at (202) 224-4515. We appreciate your cooperation in our ongoing efforts to combat abusive tax shelters, and look forward to receiving these materials as soon as possible. With best personal regards, Charles E. Grassley, Chairman. Max Baucus, Ranking Member. ____ February 12, 2004. Lawrence G. Reuter, President, New York City Transit, Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY. Dear Mr. Reuter: We are writing to enlist the assistance of New York City Transit in our ongoing investigation of abusive tax shelters. On October 21, 2003, the Committee on Finance held a hearing regarding the continuing proliferation of abusive tax shelters. During that hearing, we learned that shelter promoters are engaging in transactions with U.S. municipalities and other state and local governmental units, which allow major U.S. corporations to depreciate state and local infrastructure assets, such as railways, subways, dams, water lines, and air traffic control systems. Our subsequent investigations have disclosed that federal agencies have endorsed these transactions, even though the Department of the Treasury had classified them as abusive tax shelters. Under this scheme, municipalities are paid an up-front cash fee to enter into a long-term lease of their infrastructure to the tax shelter promoters. The cash received by the municipality, however, pales in comparison to the federal tax benefits received by the corporations, which will be able to depreciate taxpayer-funded bridges, subways, and rail systems as a result of the lease. As part of the same agreement, the promoters will agree to simultaneously lease the assets back to the municipality. The obligations of the promoters and municipalities are prepaid through ``phantom'' debt, and neither the tax promoters nor the municipality assumes any credit or ownership risk. At the end of the lease term, the infrastructure assets revert back to the municipality. In reality, nothing changes regarding the ownership or use of the infrastructure. One municipal manager described these transactions as ``People giving him money which he never had to pay back, for doing something that he was already doing.'' In March 1999, the Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration initiated enforcement actions against these transactions, which are called LILOs--an abbreviation of their industry name ``lease-in-lease-out'' transactions. We have further learned that these transactions have continued, albeit in a different form, and that [[Page S10912]] other federal agencies may be approving these transactions. The LILO transactions have now been replicated through service agreement contracts and transactions called SILOs-- ``sales-in-lease-out.'' Other variations on these transactions have involved qualified technology equipment (QTEs). We are certain that you share my concern that subway systems, water lines, waste treatment plants, and air traffic control systems constructed with taxpayer dollars are being used by big corporations to shelter billions of dollars in taxes through bogus depreciation deductions. In order to assist us in assessing the scope and scale of this problem, I request that New York City Transit submit to the Committee on Finance copies of all LILOs, SILOs, QTEs, and similar transactions that have been approved, funded, or otherwise reviewed by New York City Transit from the year 1995 to present. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Ed McClellan or Matt Genasci of the Senate Finance Committee at (202) 224-4515. We appreciate your cooperation in our ongoing efforts to combat abusive tax shelters, and look forward to receiving these materials as soon as possible. With best personal regards, Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Max Baucus, Ranking Member. ____ February 12, 2004. Frank Kruesi, President, Chicago Transit Authority, Merchandise Mart Plaza, Post Office Box 3555, Chicago, IL. Dear Mr. Kruesi: We are writing to enlist the assistance of the Chicago Transit Authority in our ongoing investigation of abusive tax shelters. On October 21, 2003, the Committee on Finance held a hearing regarding the continuing proliferation of abusive tax shelters. During that hearing, we learned that shelter promoters are engaging in transactions with U.S. municipalities and other state and local governmental units, which allow major U.S. corporations to depreciate state and local infrastructure assets, such as railways, subways, dams, water lines, and air traffic control systems. Our subsequent investigations have disclosed that federal agencies have endorsed these transactions, even though the Department of the Treasury had classified them as abusive tax shelters. Under this scheme, municipalities are paid an up-front cash fee to enter into a long-term lease of their infrastructure to the tax shelter promoters. The cash received by the municipality, however, pales in comparison to the federal tax benefits received by the corporations, which will be able to depreciate taxpayer-funded bridges, subways, and rail systems as a result of the lease. As part of the same agreement, the promoters will agree to simultaneously lease the assets back to the municipality. The obligations of the promoters and municipalities are prepaid through ``phantom'' debt, and neither the tax promoters nor the municipality assumes any credit or ownership risk. At the end of the lease term, the infrastructure assets revert back to the municipality. In reality, nothing changes regarding the ownership or use of the infrastructure. One municipal manager described these transactions as ``People giving him money which he never had to pay back, for doing something that he was already doing.'' In March 1999, the Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration initiated enforcement actions against these transactions, which are called LILOs--an abbreviation of their industry name ``lease-in-lease-out'' transactions. We have further learned that these transactions have continued, albeit in a different form, and that other federal agencies may be approving these transactions. The LILO transactions have now been replicated through service agreement contracts and transactions called SILOs--``sales- in-lease-out.'' Other variations on these transactions have involved qualified technology equipment (QTEs). We are certain that you share my concern that water lines, waste treatment plants, and air traffic control systems constructed with taxpayer dollars are being used by big corporations to shelter billions of dollars in taxes through bogus depreciation deductions. In order to assist us in assessing the scope and scale of this problem, I request that the Chicago Transit Authority submit to the Committee on Finance copies of all LILOs, SILOs, QTEs, and similar transactions that have been approved, funded, or otherwise reviewed by the Chicago Transit Authority from the year 1995 to present. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Ed McClellan or Matt Genasci of the Senate Finance Committee at (202) 224-4515. We appreciate your cooperation in our ongoing efforts to combat abusive tax shelters, and look forward to receiving these materials as soon as possible. With best personal regards, Charles E. Grassley, Chairman. Max Baucus, Ranking Member. Mr. GRASSLEY. I have been fighting against SILO/LILO tax shelters for a long time, as has Senator Baucus. In October 2003, the Finance Committee held hearings on the status of abusive tax shelter activities. During that hearing, we received anonymous testimony from a leasing industry executive that used the name Mr. Janet. He described how U.S. corporations were able to take tax deductions for such things as the Paris, France, sewer lines and the New York subway system. Major corporations were claiming tax deductions on taxpayer-funded infrastructure located in the United States and overseas. Imagine our surprise when we learned that U.S. taxpayers were subsidizing the cost of electric transmission lines in the Australian outback. I find it hard to believe that a corporation was actually taking a tax deduction for the New York City transit car pictured here. However, that is exactly what greedy corporations were doing. Just like the greedy tax shelter promoters who were handing out U.S. taxpayer money to greedy corporations by selling these shady tax shelters to them, the House voted last night to put U.S. taxpayer dollars on the line to bail out tax shelter participants and perpetuate these abusive tax shelters. If we look at all the key congressional players on this deal, we will find that, perhaps not by coincidence, nearly all of them represent areas where these transit shelter deals were done. These tend to be the biggest cities. They tend to be the areas where the shops that hired the sharpies that manufacture these tax shelters do business. Most of these key congressional players for years, especially when Republicans were in the majority, railed against tax shelters. Now we find that for these key congressional players, the imperatives of the transit lobby decisively outweigh the importance of cracking down on a tax shelter that a Federal judge rightly described as ``rotten to the core.'' This reminds me of the Joker from the 1989 version of ``Batman,'' who says: ``I'm giving out free money.'' You know the Joker, as shown on this chart. You have seen him. ``I'm giving out free money.'' As we all know, money is not free. Unfortunately, the joke here has been--and will again be if we do not do something about it--on the American taxpayer. Literally, the guarantee continues the cruel tax shelter joke on the American taxpayers' dime. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to not allow this cruel joke to be played on the American taxpayers. I have fought against these tax shelters in the past, and I will continue to fight against them in the future. This provision puts taxpayers' dollars on the line and perpetuates an abusive tax shelter. In fact, it puts the U.S. Government in the position of guaranteeing tax benefits that corporations, including foreign corporations--again, I want to emphasize--hope to reap from engaging in these tax shelters. So as Senator Baucus has just done--and I thank him for his leadership--I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill which contains a bailout for tax shelter participants. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, are we as in morning business? The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business, Senator. Mr. BUNNING. Thank you. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the auto bailout proposal before the Senate. But before talking about any legislation, I wish to say that I am very concerned, as everybody in the United States is, about the state of the auto industry, not only in Detroit but other States that have a great deal of auto workers and related industries. As I said at the first Banking Committee hearing on this issue, I am not concerned about any sense of American pride or because of the great history of the American auto industry. What concerns me is the workers--the men and women who assemble our cars and trucks, who sell and service the vehicles, and those who work for the suppliers who keep the industry running. Auto manufacturing is the largest manufacturing sector in my Commonwealth. That is the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I know Detroit's pain is felt in many towns and cities in Kentucky. In many counties, jobs supplying parts to GM, Ford, or Toyota are some of the best jobs anywhere in Kentucky. Those jobs are in danger, and I am concerned for the workers and their families. The question facing Congress is what, if anything, we can and should do about the industry's current problems. [[Page S10913]] As I understand it, one of the two bills that is going to come before the Senate--as soon as this afternoon--one is the bill passed by the House, and the other is a similar Senate proposal. Unfortunately, much like the other bailouts we have passed, those bills rely on hopes and promises of future actions and do not require serious concessions. Those bills do not address the immediate problems facing the industry, which is a lack of funding for car loans and dealer floor plans, and many other related issues. While the Detroit manufacturers were forced by the economic crisis to come to Congress for aid at this time, their problems are not just the result of problems in our current financial markets. The companies are simply uncompetitive in today's marketplace because of decades of bad business decisions by both the corporate management and the labor unions. What is needed is a serious restructuring of the companies that brings their costs in line with the costs of cars made by manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota and their capacity in line with the true demand for new cars, not the artificially inflated demand of the last few years. Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill forces these companies and their stakeholders to make the changes necessary to force restructuring. The so-called car czar has no real power to make the companies and stakeholders reach an agreement accomplishing the cost and capacity changes that must be made. Because the companies would not survive in the long term without those changes, they would be back before Congress next year asking for more money to get them through the next few months, and back again and again. That is an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars and would ultimately lead to the death of the companies and many thousands and thousands of jobs permanently being lost. Because I care too much about the workers, I cannot support either of these bills as they are currently written. I have previously said I would support Federal assistance for companies if they undertake a chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring. Federal financing and warranty guarantees would enable the companies to emerge from that restructuring successfully and more quickly than they would otherwise. Senator Shelby and Senator Ensign have an amendment to do just that, and I will be supporting their amendment if they are allowed to have a vote on it on the floor of the Senate. However, chapter 11 bankruptcy is not the ideal solution, and I know just the word ``bankruptcy'' causes many people whose jobs, retirement, and health care depend on the companies to shudder. A similar restructuring that accomplishes significant changes outside of bankruptcy would work as well. Senator Corker has an amendment that would require those significant changes as a condition of Federal assistance provided in the majority's bill. If the majority allows a vote on Senator Corker's amendment, I will support it. If the amendment is adopted to the Senate version of the bill, I will support passage. If the majority blocks any minority amendments, as they have done for nearly the entire Congress, I will oppose the bill and any cloture motions. I will go ahead and state for the record that if the Corker amendment passes and the bill becomes law, I will oppose any and all attempts to weaken its requirements. Now, I say that knowing full well that I am very concerned that come January 20, the majority might try to rewrite the requirements so that the companies are not forced to make painful changes that are necessary for them to survive in the long term. I hope that will not be the case. For these companies to survive and thrive, there must be painful changes made, and we all know some jobs will be lost. However, with a successful restructuring, the Corker amendment being included, more jobs will be preserved for the long term than if we just prop up the companies with taxpayers' dollars for a few short months and hope for the best. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, since no one else is in the Chamber, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for less than 10 minutes as in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10909,2008-12-11,110,2,,,RECESS,SENATE,SENATE,SRECESS,S10909,S10909,"[{""name"": ""Barbara A. Mikulski"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10909,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10909] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] RECESS The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until 3 o'clock. Thereupon, at 2:17 p.m., the Senate recessed until 3:03 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Ms. Klobuchar). The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of Minnesota, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10913,2008-12-11,110,2,,,HOLDER NOMINATION HEARING SCHEDULE,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10913,S10914,"[{""name"": ""Chuck Grassley"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Harry Reid"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10913,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10913-S10914] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] HOLDER NOMINATION HEARING SCHEDULE Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss Eric Holder's nomination to be the U.S. Attorney General. While Mr. Holder appears to have the appropriate credentials and work experience, it is important that the Judiciary Committee be able to fully and carefully vet the candidate for this important position because this is the Nation's top law enforcement officer. I was surprised to hear that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee noticed Mr. Holder's confirmation hearing for January 8, 2009. Mr. Holder was only formally announced as the prospective Attorney General nominee on December 1 of this year. I understand the Judiciary Committee has a large number of boxes of archived documents relating to his employment at the Justice Department, and those materials need to be reviewed. We have not even gotten Mr. Holder's questionnaire, nomination materials, or FBI background investigation yet. Judiciary Committee members just sent a letter to the Justice Department and the Clinton Library requesting documents relating to issues that Mr. Holder was involved in during his tenure in the Clinton Justice Department. Once we get these materials and once these documents come to us, it will take some time for committee members to review them. While it is not unprecedented for the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing prior to the inauguration of a President, such as the one held for former Attorney General John Ashcroft, there are significant differences. First, the Ashcroft nomination hearing was held from January 16 to January 19, 2001, obviously giving committee members more breathing room to review his record. Moreover, Attorney General Ashcroft was a well-known quantity to us because he served as our colleague in the U.S. Senate and he was a prominent member of the Judiciary Committee. Of course, this was all prior to his nomination for Attorney General. Even then, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted on 2 days of testimony from the nominee and 2 days of testimony from 23 other outside witnesses, for a total of 4 days of hearings. The bottom line is that the proposed January 8 hearing timetable doesn't give members a full and fair chance to consider Mr. Holder's background as thoroughly as we should. We must have time to comprehensively examine all of Mr. Holder's information, materials, and documents, most of which we haven't even received yet. There is no need to jump the gun and undermine our oversight responsibilities. This is all the more important because Mr. Holder is not a nominee free and clear of issues. The fact is Mr. Holder played a very key role in some very controversial matters, and since his nomination, a number of newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, have all published articles reminding the public of those controversies and raising serious questions about Mr. Holder's role in them. These issues need to be fully considered by members of the Judiciary Committee and eventually by the full Senate. For example, red flags about Mr. Holder's judgment and independence include his role in securing pardons or clemency for an unrepentant billionaire fugitive tax cheat such as Marc Rich or terrorists such as members of the FALN and Weather Underground. A lot of people--including this Senator--have found these facts to be troubling. As I previously mentioned, a number of editorials have been written asking questions about how those facts impact Mr. Holder's ability to serve as U.S. Attorney General. I expect to question Mr. Holder at his confirmation hearing about these and other controversial matters he has been involved with. [[Page S10914]] In addition, Mr. Holder has been in private practice since he left the Clinton Justice Department over 8 years ago. It is important that we know what Mr. Holder has been doing in those 8 years, which cases he has been involved with, and who his clients are, what speeches he has made, and so forth. For example, public reports have emerged that in 2004, the Governor of Illinois hired or sought to hire Mr. Holder. We certainly need time to learn what that is all about. Mr. Holder has not provided the committee with all of this information yet. Again, it is not unreasonable for members of the Judiciary Committee to want to receive all of these materials and have ample opportunity to study them before holding the nomination hearings. As such, I, then--this Senator, then--is in support of Senator Specter's request that Chairman Leahy move the hearing to a later date in January so committee members can do their duty and review Mr. Holder's nomination in a responsible manner. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been working, as I think the country knows and the Senate knows, for the last many weeks trying to come up with some way to resolve the issue of dealing with Detroit and the automobile manufacturers. We thought we were at a place today where we would have a series of votes and we were almost there when another Senator submitted another idea. As a result of that, there are good- faith negotiations going on as we speak. The last I heard is that they would have something completed by 5:30. I kind of smile when I say that, because considering the years I have spent here in the Senate, sometimes I don't know if they are referring to ``5:30'' meaning 10 minutes from now or 12 hours and 10 minutes from now, but they said 5:30. If they are able to work that out, then the bill will overwhelmingly pass the Senate. I have told the House and the House will have to do whatever they do with that. But right now, that is not done. As I indicated, they said they thought a half hour or so ago it would be done by 5:30. I hope that is the case. I know it is late. I know people want more definite definitions of when this is all going to happen, but that isn't the way the Senate works, as much as we would all like it to be. So if everyone will be patient, there is still a possibility--and even maybe a probability--that sometime this evening we would be able to vote. Now, Senator McConnell and I don't know at this stage what we will be voting on. If the negotiations which are going forward now bear fruit, then that will be the issue that I think would pass with a significant margin here in the Senate. There may be some other Senators who want to offer alternatives. I think there may be some suggestions for that to take place. At this stage, I think it is pretty clear that there is no need to vote on the House measure, because it is pretty clear there aren't enough votes to pass that, but those decisions we will make shortly. I think what we are going to be voting on is a series of competing alternatives. There is not going to be an opportunity to offer a lot of individual rifleshot amendments to these different proposals, but I know that a number of Senators have one proposal. We have the one we talked about we will probably vote on today, and then we have the bipartisan issue that is being worked on right now. If we are fortunate, maybe we could wind up having three votes or maybe only two votes. But, anyway, we are doing our best to resolve this issue. There is no need to talk about all of the Senators involved. We will do that if we can work something out and they will get all the accolades they need. We have had a lot of cooperation today. That doesn't mean we are going to be able to work something out, because this is a very important issue. But right now, I think we are a lot further down the road than I thought we would be. I was trying to think: Down the road distance, so it should be ``farther'' down the road. But, anyway, I wish to alert everyone they should be patient tonight. We hope to have some votes before the night is out. If everything falls apart, then we will be left with having a cloture vote on the Democratic version. Regardless of whether we work something out, that would be tomorrow morning, as early as we want to come in, but hopefully, that is not the resolution of this because that may not be the best way to solve the problem of Detroit. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10914-2,2008-12-11,110,2,,,MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATED TO THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006,SENATE,SENATE,TECHNICALCORRECTIONS,S10914,S10915,"[{""name"": ""Max Baucus"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Jon Kyl"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]","[{""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""7327""}, {""congress"": ""110"", ""type"": ""HR"", ""number"": ""7327""}]",154 Cong. Rec. S10914,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Pages S10914-S10915] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATED TO THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in a moment I will ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to passage of H.R. 7327, the pension bill. Before I do that, I wish to say this is very important relief for seniors and for the country. The bill includes a provision that would allow seniors who are 70\1/2\ years of age not to have to make withdrawals from their IRA accounts that the current law requires. Under current law, if you are 70\1/2\ or older, you must begin to withdraw significant amounts from your 401(k) accounts or IRA accounts and if you don't, you pay a big penalty. At these times it is not wise to require that, because the accounts are lower in value and they should not have to make those withdrawals if they don't want to. In addition, this legislation would allow companies to postpone making increased contributions to their pension plans also required by the recent pension law. When we revised pension law a short while ago, we were pretty strict to protect employees by requiring companies to make contributions to the pension plans at a much faster rate. That made sense then, but given the economic downturn, with the market values down so much lower than they were back then, it makes sense, I believe--and I think most Senators agree--that those contributions should be postponed or later modified in order to keep companies viable. A lot of companies need this to meet payrolls in these difficult times, and this will prevent them having to freeze their benefits. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7327, which was received from the House. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title. The legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (H.R. 7327) to make technical corrections related to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, and for other purposes. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are living through an unprecedented economic downturn. Over the past 15 months, the Dow Jones Industrial companies have lost more than one-third of their value. An end does not appear in sight. This sharp market decline hurts more than just Wall Street. It hurts every American with a retirement plan. When the market drops, so do the assets in pension plans. Over the past 15 months, because of the current financial crisis, retirement accounts have lost as much as $2 trillion in assets due to the current financial crisis. That is $2 trillion that disappeared from the retirement accounts of American workers. And that is $2 trillion that disappeared from the accounts of pension plans. [[Page S10915]] Congress must act now to protect individual retirement accounts and pension benefits and assets. This bill provides relief for seniors age 70\1/2\ and older whom current law requires to take distributions from their retirement plans. Individuals would have the option to keep their retirement savings where they are. We should not force them to take out huge portions of their savings when the market is down. This bill also contains a number of provisions to help ease the strain on pension plans. And this bill would help to prevent the need for some plans to reduce benefits or make extraordinary funding contributions due to the market downturn. If we fail to act and provide short-term funding relief, pension plans would be unable to afford their increased contributions. By one estimate, current law would require 350 of the Fortune 500 companies to contribute an extra $100 billion or more to their pension plans next year, even if the market rebounds. If these companies did this, they would reduce their investment spending by $60 to $70 billion next year. That is something that our economy cannot afford. This bill provides relief for single-employer plans that fall below the set funding target percentage set in the Pension Protection Act of 2006. And the bill provides analogous relief for multi-employer plans that are faced with significant underfunding due to market losses. This relief would allow them to temporarily freeze their current funding certification or extend the time period that they have to restore their funding levels. The bill also helps prevent benefit restrictions for those single- employer plans that may be significantly underfunded next year due to the market downturn. This bill also contains a number of critical technical amendments to the Pension Protection Act of 2006. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 arguably marks the most sweeping changes to the pension laws since the enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Like many complicated pieces of legislation, technical corrections to the law must be made. Technical corrections to the law are often time sensitive. That is, many of them must be passed by both Houses of Congress before the effective date of the statute. Many of the rules under the Pension Act were effective January 1, 2008. This means that the time for passing technical corrections has come and gone. If we were not to act and pass these time-sensitive provisions now, the pension community and the Department of the Treasury--the agency tasked with interpreting the statute and providing the necessary details on how the new law works--would be placed in a very tough spot. That is, the Department of the Treasury would not have the necessary corrections and clarifications of the original intent of the act to sufficiently issue the details necessary to allow the pension community to achieve proper compliance. This would not be fair to the pension community or the Treasury Department. Failing to pass these technical corrections would therefore be irresponsible. Here in the Senate, we passed the technical corrections contained in this act back in December 2007. We already said that these corrections are good pension policy. Americans need real help from Congress to make sure that their retirement savings are safe and sound and available to them when they need it. This bill contains a number of provisions that would help to provide relief to individuals and pension plans and move the economy toward recovery. Individuals and the pension community warned that individual retirement account holders and pension plan participants could be adversely affected without the provisions contained in this bill. Passing this pension package sends the right message to individuals, plan sponsors, and pension plan participants. I thank my colleagues for helping to make passage of this bill possible today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (H.R. 7327) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________" CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10914,2008-12-11,110,2,,,EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS,SENATE,SENATE,ALLOTHER,S10914,S10914,"[{""name"": ""Harry Reid"", ""role"": ""speaking""}, {""name"": ""Max Baucus"", ""role"": ""speaking""}]",,154 Cong. Rec. S10914,"Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008) [Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)] [Senate] [Page S10914] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 6:30 p.m. tonight with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. Of course, the Senators are always very cooperative. If, in fact, there is something that Senator McConnell and I have been able to work out, then we will ask that the person be interrupted and we will try to move forward with a unanimous consent agreement. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________"