{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10895", "2008-12-11", 110, 2, null, null, "AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY CRISIS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S10895", "S10901", "[{\"name\": \"David Vitter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mitch McConnell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Barbara Boxer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "154 Cong. Rec. S10895", "Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S10895-S10901]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                       AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY CRISIS\n\n  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand to again address the key issue\nbefore us that affects so many Americans, American families, and indeed\nall of us, through our economy: the proposed U.S. auto industry\nbailout.\n  Yesterday, I stood here and announced two conclusions I was driven to\nreach. First, I would have to strongly oppose the bailout package in\nits present form because I don't think it demands the fundamental\nrestructuring it will take for those companies to survive. Second,\nbecause of that very point, I would use every procedural tool available\nto block, stop, and delay that package from passing into law.\n  I, again, reached those conclusions. I restate that commitment for\none very simple, very compelling reason--because so much is at stake;\nbecause we need to get it right; because millions of individual workers\nand families, and indeed all of us, through our economy, will suffer\nthe consequences of our not taking appropriate action.\n  Again, let me be clear, I am not trying to block this package in\nspite of job losses that would occur if these companies went down. I am\ntrying to block this package because of that, in light of that, because\nthis package doesn't demand the fundamental core restructuring that is\nabsolutely necessary for these companies to survive.\n  This package puts those companies down a road where I believe that is\nunlikely to ever happen. It would throw a lot of taxpayer dollars at\nthe problem to buy time, but it doesn't change the endgame, in my\nopinion.\n  Let me also make clear, having said all that, I am not for doing\nnothing. I am not for going home and forgetting about this and walking\naway. This is a serious crisis we must address. I am for doing\nsomething, but the right thing, the right way, something that will\nensure, demand the fundamental core restructuring it will take for\nthese American companies to survive.\n  What do I mean by that? I could support a few alternatives. Let me\noutline two specific alternatives that are being worked on now, that\nhave been developed, that are being discussed by many Members that I\ncould support. First of all, I could certainly support a strong,\ncomprehensive alternative being developed by Senator Bob Corker of\nTennessee and others. That proposal wouldn't throw $14 billion at the\ncompany before any outline of a restructuring plan is agreed to. It\nwould say: No, we need to agree and nail down and ensure some of those\nfundamentals now, before any taxpayer dollars go to those companies.\n  What are those fundamentals? Senator Corker outlines four that I\nagree are at the core of the issue and must be nailed down before any\ntaxpayer dollars should go to those companies.\n  First, his proposal would require that participating companies reduce\ntheir outstanding debt obligations by at least two-thirds by forcing\nthe companies' bondholders to accept an equity swap or debt for debt\nand equity swap--in other words, for the taxpayer dollars we would be\nsending to those companies not to boost the take, not to boost the\nvalue of bonds for those bondholders, but for the bondholders to\ncontribute something up front to reduce the debt of the companies. That\nis crucial because right now those companies, particularly GM, are\ndrowning under unbelievable debt, and that alleged loan would be on top\nof that. So that is crucial.\n  Second, we would agree up front that the companies would become more\ncompetitive by requiring that all-in labor costs and work rules would\nbe immediately on par with other automaking companies such as Nissan,\nToyota, and Honda. Obviously, a major source of the uncompetitiveness\nof the three U.S. automakers is their labor costs. They cannot possibly\ncompete in this global marketplace when their costs are way, way\nhigher, 80 percent higher than competitors such as Toyota, Honda, and\nNissan. This aspect of the Corker plan would ensure that is nailed down\nup front.\n  Third, the legislation would require that changes in payments to the\nUAW VEBA accounts occur to help the companies' cash flow, specifically\nthat at least half of any scheduled payments be made in stock. There\nagain, it would reinforce the sense that the workers and the union have\na real stake in all of this working and in those companies surviving.\n  Fourth, any compensation, outside of customary severance pay, that\ngoes now to workers who have been fired or laid off or furloughed would\nend. Again, a major cost to these U.S. companies, a major source of\ntheir uncompetitiveness is they are paying lots of money, tens of\nmillions or billions of dollars for people not to work, for people not\nto work.\n  That is a plan I could support. That is not putting the cart before\nthe horse. That is getting things in the right order, nailing down that\nessential restructuring now before any taxpayer dollars go out the\ndoor.\n  A second alternative I could support would involve a formal\nbankruptcy process. A lot of folks make the argument that bankruptcy is\nnot an option, that consumers will never buy a car of a company in\nbankruptcy; they don't know if the warranty will be there or be good 6\nmonths or a year from now. We can fix that problem. We can address that\nproblem with appropriate limited Government assistance and\nparticipation in the formal bankruptcy.\n  Specifically, I would support a plan whereby the Government could\nplay that role in two limited, specific ways: one, backing up the\nwarranty obligations of the companies with the full faith and credit of\nthe U.S. Government so consumers can retain that confidence and, two,\nproviding debtor-in-possession financing if that is necessary. I\nbelieve the Government playing that crucial role, or something akin to\nthat, can make a traditional bankruptcy process work.\n  Again, Mr. President, I stand before you and my colleagues in the\nSenate--indeed, all the American people--to urge us to adopt one of\nthose alternative paths, to urge us to think outside the tiny\nconstricted box folks have tried to put us into and find a third way, a\nbetter way which does exist. There are folks who argue it is this or\nbust. Quite frankly, that is baseless fear mongering. There is another\nway. There is a third path and a better way. I have outlined two just\nin the last few minutes. Let's choose that better path. Let's do the\nresponsible thing. Let's demand the fundamental core restructuring it\nwill take for these companies to survive. And let's demand it and nail\nit down now, not throw billions of taxpayers' dollars at them simply\nupon the request that they sit down to begin to think about such\nrestructuring. That is the plan before us. That is unreasonable. That\nis not an appropriate role for the taxpayers. But these two\nalternatives I outlined would be far different, would demand and ensure\nthat core fundamental restructuring happens.\n  Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and\nRepublicans, to join me in voting no on the important vote tomorrow\nmorning on the present plan and to say yes to real restructuring,\nfundamental core restructuring that can save a maximum number of these\njobs in America.\n  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, these are, indeed, turbulent times for\nthe U.S. economy. Over the past several months, Americans have seen\ngiant companies fail, significant job losses, and, after unprecedented\nproblems in the credit markets, the frightening prospect of total\ndisarray within our Nation's mainstream economy.\n  The crisis in the credit markets came at us quickly. We were told\nthat urgent Government action was needed in order to shore up the\nbroader economy and that failure to act would lead to a complete\ncollapse of consumer credit, the very lifeblood of our Nation's\neconomy. Under ordinary circumstances, I would have opposed such a\nmeasure. Government intervention in the marketplace,\n\n[[Page S10896]]\n\nfrankly, cuts against all my ordinary impulses. But this was not an\nordinary event. I and many others believed that extraordinary action\nwas needed to protect millions of ordinary Americans from the colossal\nand far-reaching mistakes of a few. And action was taken. The systemic\nbreakdown some envisioned has not occurred. So there is reason to\nbelieve the medicine has had some effect. But on the whole, the overall\neconomy continues to struggle. Some industries have been hit harder\nthan others, and one of them certainly is the auto industry.\n  The problems in the auto industry have been long in the making. But\nlast month the situation grew so dire that American automobile makers\ncame to Washington with an urgent appeal for Federal help. Over the\npast few weeks, lawmakers have taken the time to examine the problems\nof these companies and the solutions that have been proposed. Now the\nAmerican taxpayers are being asked to put their money behind a plan\nthat is aimed at helping these companies survive.\n  Republicans received that plan late yesterday morning, about this\ntime yesterday. We reviewed it closely to see if it meets the criteria\nI have laid out repeatedly for taxpayer protections and for an\neffective strategy for securing the long-term viability of these\ncompanies. In the end, I concluded that it does not.\n  In some ways, the proposal that was worked out by the White House and\ncongressional Democrats appears tough. It calls on struggling auto\ncompanies and auto workers to make the sort of sacrifices they have not\nbeen accustomed to making in the past. It also includes time limits as\na way of hastening necessary reforms. But in reality, this proposal is\nnot nearly tough enough. A primary weakness relates to the so-called\ncar czar who has nearly unlimited power to allocate taxpayer dollars\nbut limited ability to force the kinds of tough concessions long-term\nviability would require. Another problem lies outside the proposal\nitself, and here I am referring to the type of Government action that\nis being contemplated.\n  Somewhat lost in the recent debate over the auto industry is the\nfundamental difference between it and the financial rescue plan\nCongress approved in October. While that plan was intended to rescue\nthe entire economy, this one is intended to save a single industry.\nThat plan was intended to help everyone from small business owners to\ncollege students, and every lawmaker who voted for it acted in the\nbelief that is exactly what it would do. A failure to appreciate this\ndistinction has caused a number of other industries and even a number\nof municipalities across the country to prepare their own proposals for\nGovernment rescue, as all Americans weather the tough economy. It has\nalso created the impression in some minds that the Federal Government\nis picking favorites and that favorite businesses get help while others\ndo not. A lot of struggling Americans are asking where their bailout\nis. They wonder why one business would get support over another. When\nit comes to the auto industry, many Republicans in Congress have asked\nthese same questions.\n\n  There are many principled reasons to oppose this bill. But the\nsimplest one is also the best--a government big enough to give us\neverything we want is a government big enough to take everything we\nhave. This is as true for individuals as it is for business. It is the\nprimary principle upon which American industry, including the auto\nindustry, was built. Even in turbulent moments such as this--perhaps\nespecially at moments such as this--it is a principle worth defending.\n  Now, some argue the effects of the auto industry collapse would be\ntoo acute and far-reaching for an already struggling economy to bear.\nThis is impossible to know. Even if we grant that these companies would\nfail without taxpayer help, we would still have to ask ourselves\nwhether the proposal before us achieves the goal everyone claims to\nembrace; namely, the long-term viability of ailing car companies. In my\nview, it does not.\n  I have already enumerated some of the weaknesses in the plan. But in\nthe end, its greatest single flaw is it promises taxpayer money today\nfor reforms that may or may not come tomorrow. We would not be serving\nthe American taxpayer well if we spent their hard-earned money without\nknowing with certainty that their investment would result in stronger,\nleaner automobile companies that would not need additional taxpayer\nhelp a few months or weeks down the road. We simply cannot ask the\nAmerican taxpayer to subsidize failure.\n  Now, all Americans, including myself, are worried about the future of\nour Nation's automakers. These companies have a venerable place in the\nstory of modern America. They continue to provide hundreds of thousands\nof jobs across the country, including 50,000 auto-related jobs in my\nhome State of Kentucky. But many Americans are also worried about the\nprospect of the Government intervening on behalf of some industries and\nnot intervening on behalf of others, especially when there is no\nguarantee--no guarantee--that the interventions will work. They wonder\nwhen the spending stops. If I were to vote in favor of this bill, I\nwould not have a very good answer for them.\n  The best route for the long-term viability of ailing car companies\nmay be a rocky one. Government help is not the only option. It is not\neven the best option. Long-term viability is still possible, but it is\nonly possible if these companies are forced to make the tough choices\nnecessary for their survival.\n  My colleague, Senator Corker, has proposed an amendment that would go\na long way toward improving this bill. In keeping with the principles I\nhave outlined before in these comments this morning, the Corker\namendment does not just encourage reform--it doesn't just encourage\nreform--it requires reform. It does so with crucial specificity. First,\nparticipating companies would be required to reduce their outstanding\ndebt by at least two-thirds through an equity swap with bondholders.\nThe Corker amendment also requires that labor cost at participating\ncompanies be brought on par with companies such as Nissan, Toyota--\nwhich I also have in my State--and Honda, not tomorrow but immediately\nbecause it is delusional to think a company which spends $71 per labor\nhour could compete with a company in the same industry that spends $49\nper labor hour.\n  The Corker amendment would improve the liquidity and cash flow of\nautomakers by requiring that a portion of the payments made to the\nunion accounts consist of company stock. Finally, the Corker amendment\nwould require participating companies to file for chapter 11\nreorganization if any of these conditions--if any of these conditions--\naren't met by a fixed date.\n  The Corker amendment forces necessary reforms, holds companies\naccountable, and assures taxpayers that these companies will not be\nback for more. If legislative action were necessary, the Corker\nproposal would make many much needed and dramatic improvements to the\nunderlying bill.\n  I, similar to all my colleagues, want the U.S. auto industry not only\nto survive but to thrive. By cutting costs, streamlining production,\nincreasing fuel efficiency, and investing in new technologies and\nattractive, more competitive designs, American auto companies will once\nagain make cars people all over the world will want to buy. Then,\nAmericans would be able to say, again, with pride that our cars are the\nbest.\n  In addition, protecting the taxpayer is a goal Republicans have been\nfighting hard for in this debate, and in my view it is a goal that is\nwell worth our efforts.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.\n  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business, with a 10-minute\ntime limit. There is no unanimous consent request on the order of\nspeakers.\n  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20\nminutes.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have to say we are now here, approaching\nChristmas, in a deepening recession. On December 1, the National Bureau\nof Economic Research said that, in fact, the recession had begun in\nDecember 2007.\n\n[[Page S10897]]\n\n  How many jobs have been lost in the last year? Almost 2 million jobs\nhave been lost in the last year. So we are here today on the heels of a\nloss of 2 million jobs. The unemployment rate stands at 6.7 percent,\nand it is growing. In my State, it is 8.2 percent. Today, the Labor\nDepartment reported that initial applications for jobless benefits rose\nto 573,000, the highest number in 26 years.\n  So when I hear someone come to the floor and say: Gee, I didn't get\nall the language until a couple days ago and this is a problem; you\nknow, sit down and read the language. We cannot afford to say we are\nnot going to do something and act to turn around this recession because\nsomebody didn't have the time to read the bill.\n  Consumer confidence has plunged to its lowest level since the survey\nbegan in 1967. Gross domestic product has dipped, personal spending\ndecreased 3.7 percent in the third quarter, and according to the CBO--\nthe Congressional Budget Office--American workers lost more than $2\ntrillion over 15 months as the stock market decline devastated\nretirement accounts. Let me say that again. American workers lost more\nthan $2 trillion over 15 months as the stock market decline devastated\nretirement savings accounts. So we are dealing with a crisis.\n  Compared to a year ago, U.S. foreclosure filings increased 71 percent\nin the third quarter. The Institute for Supply Management Index, which\nis a key gauge of U.S. manufacturing activity, fell to a 26-year low in\nNovember. Manufacturing activity fell to a 26-year low in November.\nHome prices, tracked by S&P's 20-city housing index, dropped 17.4\npercent in September. That is a record--the fastest decline on record.\nDo you hear what I am saying? The job losses, the jobless claims, the\nforeclosures, the stock market, everything is going in the wrong\ndirection. For people who don't know what the fundamentals of the\neconomy mean, that is the fundamentals of the economy. That is the\nfundamentals--unemployment, housing prices, stock market, retirement\nincomes.\n  Construction spending fell by 1.2 percent in October, much more than\nwhat was expected--another fundamental of the economy. Construction of\nsingle-family homes plunged 4.6 percent from September. Sales at the\nwholesale level plunged by 4.1 percent in October. That is nationwide.\n  My State of California trails only Michigan in the total number of\nauto-related jobs. In fact, there are nearly 200,000 Californians\nemployed by auto dealers, manufacturers, and wholesalers whose\nlivelihoods are at stake.\n  At the Vehicle Accessory Center in Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 50 workers\nmanufacture auto parts for GM cars.\n  The general manager, Russell Hoyt, writes that without a bridge loan\nto the Big Three, ``we run the risk of losing all of the gains we've\nmade over the years to make our company more competitive and to build\nnew technologies and cars that will benefit consumers and improve our\nnation's energy security.''\n  Gina Underwood, the controller of a Saturn dealership that employs 48\npeople in Ontario, CA, wrote to me about the impact the credit market\nis having on her business.\n  She says ``the potential trickle down into my community borders on\ncatastrophic.'' She adds that ``helping our industry in the short-term\nwill have a much lower cost than addressing the effects of a failed\nindustry in the midst of an economic turnaround.''\n  The Los Angeles Federation of Labor says the decline in the auto\nindustry is ``responsible for nearly 11 percent of California's job\nloss in the past year. It has also robbed millions of dollars from\nstate and local treasuries that are responsible for funding some of our\nmost crucial public services.''\n  The California chapter of the United Auto Workers writes that ``these\nloans will enable domestic auto companies to continue operations and\nwill avoid putting thousands of people out of work.''\n  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record\nthe California recession figures.\n  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in\nthe Record, as follows:\n\n                      California Recession Figures\n\n       In California, the unemployment rate is at 8.2 percent--the\n     highest in 14 years.\n       California has lost 101,000 jobs over the past year and\n     487,000 more people were looking for work in October than\n     were doing so a year ago.\n       1.5 million Californians are out of work.\n       The University of the Pacific Business Forecasting Center\n     has predicted that the state's unemployment rate will peak at\n     9.6 percent the end of next year and won't dip below 9\n     percent until 2011.\n       Through the first three quarters of 2008, more than 189,000\n     California homes were lost to foreclosure.\n       The number of California homes in foreclosure totaled\n     79,511 in the third quarter--more than triple last year's\n     number.\n       In cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego,\n     housing prices have declined more than 25 percent.\n       In October 51 percent of homes sold in Southern California\n     were in foreclosures, compared to 16 percent the year before.\n       A recent report stated that over 27 percent of California\n     homeowners are already ``underwater,'' or have negative\n     equity in their home.\n       The Joint Economic Committee estimates that California\n     state-wide home prices will fall 17 percent between 2007 and\n     2009, resulting in a net loss of over 1 trillion in housing\n     wealth.\n       The state budget shortfall for next year could reach $28\n     billion.\n\n  Mrs. BOXER. Suffice it to say that 1.5 million Californians are out\nof work, and in the third quarter we had 79,000 foreclosures, more than\ntriple last year's numbers. We have a State budget crisis, some of it\nemanating from this downturn, and we have to step up to the plate and\ndo our part. Whether we live in a city, whether we live in a county,\nwhether we work for the people as a member of a city council, whether\nwe work as a county supervisor, whether we work as a mayor or a House\nMember or a Senator, all of us who work for the people have to step up\nto the plate.\n  I did something interesting, and it might be of interest to you. I\nworked with my staff. We have 58 counties in California and we got on\nthe phone and we talked to the leaders of each of those counties and\nthe 10 major cities in our State. We do have 38 million people in our\nState. They told us what is happening on the ground there, and it is\nnot a pretty picture. Now, some of them are doing better than others. A\nlot of them are facing unemployment rates in their cities of 13\npercent, 12 percent, and 9 percent. In the inland empire area, which is\njust east of Los Angeles, we have the highest unemployment rate in the\nNation, about 9.1 percent.\n  So the point of my setting the stage for my remarks by giving a broad\nlook at what is happening is to make sure people understand we are not\ntaking up this auto rescue plan in normal times. If it was normal\ntimes, that would be one thing. I wouldn't be that sympathetic to the\nbig three in normal times. I have had my arguments with them since the\n1980s. I think their fighting California and the 19 other States that\nwant better fuel economy is a huge mistake on their part, and I don't\nwant to reward them for that. But I have to tell you, when you look at\nthe times we are in, you recognize we need to bridge these troubled\ntimes right now, bridge these troubled times with a loan so we can take\na look at this when we have a new President, a new Congress, and,\nfrankly, when we begin to see a light at the end of this tunnel, which\nI believe is going to come when our new President comes to us in\nJanuary and we start to put together a plan for economic recovery.\n  How tragic would it be if we lost this manufacturing base at this\npoint in this recession, just as I do believe we are going to pull\nourselves out of this mess we are in. We need a bridge to better times\nfor the auto industry. By the way, other countries around the globe are\ndoing the same for their auto industries. Because there are two things\nhappening here. Detroit got in trouble because, in my view, they built\nthose big cars, they didn't diversify their fleet, and they fought us\non fuel economy. Believe me, I was in that fight against them every\nstep of the way. They won that fight. But now they are losing at the\nend of the day because they made a mistake in fighting us.\n  But we don't want to lose this manufacturing base at this time. We\nwould be the only industrialized nation in the world not to have a\ndomestic auto industry.\n  When I hear my colleagues say I don't like this little sentence here\nor that sentence there, I understand that. Believe me, there are a lot\nof things in\n\n[[Page S10898]]\n\nthese bills I do not like at all. But we have to step back and say, in\nthese troubled times, unparalleled since the Great Depression, do we\nwant to leave here and risk the chance that we could wake up without a\nmanufacturing base in our great Nation? I say the answer is no.\n  I have three reasons for voting for this rescue package: Jobs, jobs\nand jobs. When we were hit with foreclosures, the first round of them,\nthey had to do with predatory lending. They had to do with some things\nthat were outrageous--people put in these subprime loans who could have\nbeen in prime loans. They woke up one day when they were paying $400 a\nmonth and suddenly it is $1,000 a month. They couldn't do it. We hope\nthose loans could be restructured. That is one set of difficult\ncircumstances for going into foreclosures. The far worse set of\ncircumstances is when you lose your job and your family cannot make it.\nThat is the thing I wish to avoid.\n  My focus is on this economy and making sure we are doing everything\nto save, preserve, and create jobs. With each passing day, we realize\nwhat a crisis we are in. Again, today we found out more people filed\nfor unemployment compensation, a bigger number than we have seen in 26\nyears. When I heard we lost 533,000 jobs last month, it sent shivers up\nand down my spine. If we don't act, we risk seeing another 2 to 3\nmillion jobs that could be at risk. We know even the collapse of one of\nthe big three could cause that.\n  In my home State, we have 200,000 auto-related jobs, second only to\nMichigan.\n  At the Vehicle Accessory Center at Rancho Cucamonga, our general\nmanager there writes that without a bridge loan to the big three:\n\n       We run the risk of losing all the gains we've made over the\n     years to make our company more competitive and to build new\n     technologies and cars that will benefit consumers and improve\n     our nation's energy security.\n\n  Gina Underwood, a controller at Saturn of Ontario, employing 48\npeople in Ontario, CA, wrote to me about the impact of the credit\ncrisis. She says:\n\n       The potential trickle down into my community borders on\n     catastrophic.\n\n  She adds:\n\n       Helping our industry in the short-term will have a much\n     lower cost than addressing the effects of a failed industry\n     in the midst of an economic turnaround.\n\n  The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor says the decline in the\nauto industry:\n\n       . . . is responsible for nearly 11 percent of California's\n     job loss in the past year.\n\n  The California chapter of the United Auto Workers writes:\n\n       These loans will enable domestic auto companies to continue\n     operations and will avoid putting thousands of people out of\n     work.\n\n  I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record.\n  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in\nthe Record, as follows:\n\n                                     Vehicle Accessory Center,\n\n                          Rancho Cucamonga, CA, November 12, 2008.\n     Senator Barbara Boxer.\n       Dear Senator Boxer: I own a company that exclusively\n     provides goods and services to General Motors Dealerships in\n     Southern California. I am writing to urge you to support GM\n     and America's domestic auto industry. Our company employs up\n     to 50 people and there are millions more Americans among\n     suppliers, dealers, retirees and communities that depend on\n     our industry for their livelihood and well-being.\n       All of us need your support now. We cannot sustain our\n     industry because of the worst financial crisis to hit our\n     country in over half a century. We run the risk of losing all\n     of the gains we've made over the years to make our company\n     more competitive and to build new technologies and cars that\n     will benefit consumers and improve our nation's energy\n     security.\n       Our industry is the real economy that runs through Main\n     Street. I call on you and your Congressional colleagues to\n     help preserve jobs and help the domestic auto industry\n     weather this financial storm. With your support, I know my\n     company will emerge stronger and more competitive. And, that\n     means a stronger economy and a more competitive America.\n       I have attached an industry fact sheet that really\n     demonstrates the critical nature of this industry to our\n     economy. I look forward to seeing you take an active role in\n     passing legislation to support this critical economic need.\n           Sincerely,\n                                                  Russell R. Hoyt,\n     General Manager/Partner.\n                                  ____\n\n                                            Saturn of Ontario,\n\n                                    Ontario, CA, December 2, 2008.\n     Hon. Barbara Boxer,\n     Washington, DC.\n       Dear Senator Boxer: My name is Gina M Underwood and I am\n     the Controller at Saturn of Ontario. My dealership employs 48\n     with an annual payroll of $1,986,059. Our business also\n     supports dozens of local suppliers that are intertwined in\n     our community providing multiple more jobs. I am writing\n     because I fear much of this will be lost and the impact to my\n     community severe if the domestic auto industry is allowed to\n     fail under the weight of the current economic chaos. I\n     believe I have good reason to request your support.\n       The negative effects of the global credit crisis have\n     caused a huge downturn in consumer confidence that I see play\n     out on my car lot every day. I have seen my sales plummet to\n     levels not seen since World War II. The manufacturers who\n     supply me can't get credit to complete their restructurings\n     and put advanced technologies into production, my customers\n     can't get credit to buy the new cars off my lot and I can't\n     get credit to finance my monthly inventory. The potential\n     trickle down into my community borders on catastrophic.\n       Hundreds of jobs in my community will be lost.\n       Multiple suppliers will go under.\n       On a broader scale, billions of dollars already invested in\n     asserting U.S. technological leadership for advanced\n     propulsion systems--in batteries, fuel cells, hybrids and\n     biofuels--will be lost.\n       Our manufacturing ability, critical for our national\n     security is threatened which only exacerbates our dependence\n     on foreign oil.\n       The critics say that the industry has not done enough to\n     save itself. They could not be more wrong. The auto\n     manufacturers have been investing $10 billion in plants and\n     equipment each year. The quality gap has been all but erased\n     between U.S.-based and foreign manufacturers. And new labor\n     agreements that will put the domestic industry in line with\n     our foreign competitors will take effect in 2010.\n       I cannot urge you strongly enough to take action on behalf\n     of my community and my industry. Helping our industry in the\n     short-term will have a much lower cost than addressing the\n     effects of a failed industry in the midst of an economic\n     turnaround. Sadly, I fear the price of inaction is greater\n     than my business can bear. Thank you for your time to hear my\n     concerns.\n       Sincerely,\n     Gina Underwood.\n                                  ____\n\n                                                Los Angeles County\n\n                                 Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO,\n\n                                Los Angeles, CA, December 5, 2008.\n     Senator Barbara Boxer,\n     Los Angeles, CA.\n       Hon. Barbara Boxer: I write to you out of concern for the\n     millions of autoworkers who will lose their good jobs if\n     federal emergency aid isn't passed for automakers and because\n     the industry's downfall is responsible for nearly 11 percent\n     of California's job loss in the past year. It has also robbed\n     tens of millions of dollars from state and local treasuries\n     that are responsible for funding some of our most crucial\n     public services.\n       While we in Los Angeles are fortunate not to be home to an\n     industry that is on a verge of collapse, we are the nation's\n     capitol of the working poor. In my many years leading the\n     union representing hotel workers, I have come to witness how\n     low-wage workers struggle just to get by. They struggle to\n     feed their children, pay their bills and rent. When their\n     children fall ill they rely on home remedies instead of\n     taking them to the doctor because they simply can't afford\n     it.\n       My concern for workers if the emergency assistance fails to\n     pass is not whether they will find another job elsewhere, but\n     what will become of them in that next job. I worry that it\n     will force them into our nation's ranks of the working poor.\n     In my 30 years in the labor movement I've come to learn that\n     poverty in our communities doesn't stem from a lack of jobs.\n     It stems from a lack of good jobs that provide middle class\n     wages and benefits--jobs that provide the pathway to reach\n     the American dream.\n       As leaders, you as a public servant and I as a labor\n     leader, have a moral responsibility to fight for good jobs\n     that allow men and women to raise their families with pride,\n     dignity and with the piece of mind that a secure retirement\n     brings. We must do everything possible to ensure that the\n     industry that was once the backbone of our middle class rises\n     to those heights once again, So I urge you today to vote for\n     government aid to automakers.\n           In solidarity,\n                                               Maria Elena Durazo,\n     Executive Secretary-Treasurer.\n                                  ____\n\n                                                 UAW Region 5,\n\n                                    Fremont, CA, December 1, 2008.\n     Re Bridge Loan for the Big Three.\n\n     Hon. Barbara Boxer,\n     San Francisco, CA.\n       Dear Senator Boxer: On behalf of the UAW postdoctoral\n     research members who reside in San Francisco, we would\n     greatly appreciate it if you would take some time away from\n     your busy schedule to meet with us before December 8, 2008,\n     here in the City.\n       The purpose of our meeting is to help you understand the\n     serious issues that the UAW is facing concerning the Big\n     Three auto loans. These loans will enable domestic auto\n     companies to continue operations and will avoid putting\n     thousands of people out of work. We also need to remember\n     that suppliers who make certain parts for auto companies will\n     be affected by this as well. Let's\n\n[[Page S10899]]\n\n     not forget that the auto industry has been woven into the\n     fabric of the United States of America, and without it, we\n     will fail.\n       This is an extremely important issue to all of us. Please\n     would you contact my secretary, Veronica Morgan, at (510)\n     656-9901, and let her know the date and time you will be\n     available. You can also contact me on my cell, xxxxxxxxxx\n     xxxx.\n           Sincerely,\n                                                      Pat Caccamo,\n                                 UAW CAP Representative, Region 5.\n\n  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the unemployment rate in my State, again,\nis 8.2 percent in California; 8.2 percent. It is rising. Losing another\n200,000 jobs at this time is catastrophic. If we leave and we risk\nthat, then it is our fault. The people who vote this way will have to\nanswer to their own consciences. Failure to act is not an option.\n  Here's the thing, there is a huge cost of inaction. I understand my\ncolleagues are very concerned about the cost to taxpayers. I share that\nconcern. I never heard them talk about that when their States were\ngiving all kinds of incentives to foreign car companies to come in. I\nwill get to that later. But here is what happens in addition to the\nmassive job losses if the big three fail. The burden on taxpayers to\npick up the pieces would be much more costly than these loans. Losing\nGM, Ford or Chrysler would add billions of dollars in costs to the\nalready depleted Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Taxpayers would\nhave to provide health care, unemployment benefits, and other related\nservices. Unfunded health care liabilities would be forced into\nMedicare and Medicaid with costs reaching $50 billion. If the\nautomakers file for bankruptcy, it could lead to a $108 billion loss to\nthe Treasury because of reduced individual income.\n  My colleagues say let them go bankrupt, as if it is a magic solution.\nIt is not a magic solution because the polls tell us 80 percent of the\npeople will not buy a car from a bankrupt automaker because of obvious\nreasons. If you want to keep your car 3, 4, 5 years--I keep mine 9 or\n10 years--you want to make sure you have the parts available to fix\nyour car. You want to make sure you have someone who understands the\ncar and can service the car.\n  This is not similar to a dress company going out of business and\ndeclaring bankruptcy. That is sad and it is tough but, you know, you\nare not going to worry about it. If you have a dress by someone and the\ncompany goes out of business, you are not going to be dealing with that\nmanufacturer. You are if you buy a car. By providing $14 billion in\nloan authority now with requirements that the money be paid back, we\nare taking steps to protect taxpayers from at least $150 billion in\nfuture liabilities, should the auto companies shut down.\n  Then there are people who say isn't this the first of what could be\nmany interventions? I can't predict that. I am just saying at this\ntime, now, with what we know about the state of this economy, with what\nwe know about the state of the lost equity in the market, with what we\nknow about the state of housing, of construction, of the number of\npeople filing--this the Christmas season. My goodness, let's take a\nchance on this. Let's take a chance on this.\n  The administration gave $150 billion to an insurance company. I never\nheard anybody at that time say: Well, the workers in that insurance\ncompany make too much money. That is the problem. You never heard a\nword about that from my Republican friends. Blaming the workers for\nthis is outrageous. They have given back and they have given back and\nthey have given back.\n  What would happen to the thousands of other associated businesses\nthat rely on GM, Ford, and Chrysler if they went belly up? The big\nthree share 80 percent of the supplier base in this country. If one of\nthe companies goes bankrupt, these small- and medium-size businesses\ncould lose significant revenue and be forced to make layoffs or close\ntheir doors.\n  I wish to talk about other countries taking significant steps to\nsupport their domestic auto manufacturing base. Countries throughout\nEurope and Asia are providing assistance to their auto manufacturers\nduring this time of crisis. You take all the auto companies now--take\nToyota. Their sales are way down. Everybody is hit by this recession.\nThe question is, Do we abandon this manufacturing base? Credit markets\nare still frozen. For that, I have to say, and let me be clear--I don't\nunderstand what Mr. Paulson has done since we gave him that authority\nfor $350 billion. Why are the credit markets still as frozen as they\nare?\n  The answer comes back: It could have been worse. I believe that. It\ncould have been worse. But we need to do a better job there. Let me be\nclear, I am not voting--if I have to vote today, tomorrow, next week--\nto release the next $350 billion to this administration. So let me put\nthat on the line.\n  Other countries are recognizing that, with the credit markets frozen,\nthey need to maintain their strong manufacturing base. We are the\ngreatest country in the world. How could we ever continue our\nleadership if we lose that manufacturing base? I know Senator Stabenow\nhas been quite eloquent on the point, about how integrated the\nmanufacturing base is with our military and national defense\ninfrastructure. The big three automakers are the biggest customers for\nmany of the major suppliers of parts and technology for the armed\nservices. From onboard computer devices to tires to engine machinery,\nthese suppliers often rely on the big three to sustain their\nbusinesses.\n  I say to my colleagues on the other side who are taking the lead\nagainst this: Think about it. We all stand for a strong defense. If you\nlose this manufacturing base, whom are you going to rely on if we have\nmore national emergencies, international emergencies? We know we cannot\nafford to lose this base.\n  I mentioned before that some of my colleagues on the other side--the\nSenator from Alabama, the Senator from Tennessee--they have been very\noutspoken against helping the auto companies. Where were they when\nAlabama provided $258 million in taxpayer-funded incentives to the\nforeign automaker Mercedes-Benz to build an auto manufacturing plant in\nthe State of Alabama? I never heard them speak up. Do they only speak\nout against American workers who work for American companies here? They\nsupport the foreign companies, not the American companies.\n  Tennessee offered at least $200 million in incentives to Toyota to\nbuild an assembly plant in Chattanooga. Instead, they landed in\nMississippi. Mississippi provided Toyota $296 million in taxpayer-\nfunded initiatives. Why don't I hear my colleagues from Tennessee or\nMississippi out here saying: Oh, that was a mistake. Taxpayers should\nnot have been on the hook.\n  Something is wrong. Is this about not helping these workers because\nthey are tough and they joined a union? Is that it? What is this? It\ndoesn't smell right. You can't support giving money to lure foreign\nmanufacturers into your State, foreign auto companies into your State,\nand then suddenly turn on folks who are trying to save the domestic\nautomobile industry.\n  It is not that I am against what those States did. I am just talking\nabout being consistent. If you didn't oppose giving money to foreign\ncar companies, why do you oppose giving a bridge loan to our own\ndomestic manufacturing base at a time of great economic peril?\n  We will live to fight another day on this, that is for sure. As I\nsaid, if this were a different time, if this were a different place, if\nthe economy were thriving and one of those companies had problems due\nto their own ineptitude, I would not be here now. This is a worldwide\nrecession. Other countries are moving forward. I hope the American\npeople understand this.\n  If we are to add 2 to 3 million more unemployed people onto the list,\nwe are going to be in a downward spiral. It is going to be very hard\nfor us to recover in the near term.\n  Again, the big three have made a lot of mistakes. I met with them in\nthe 1980s. I will never forget it. I was over in the House and I was on\na committee that was dealing with fuel economy. I said: Why don't you\nmake more of these fuel-efficient cars? At that time, I said: My kids\nare in college. I see their friends are all buying these smaller cars.\nThey want to buy American, but they cannot. They cannot afford the gas.\nThat was after we had this crisis in the 1970s.\n  They said: You don't know what you are talking about. Those small\ncars, you don't make enough money on\n\n[[Page S10900]]\n\nthem, they are no good. People want big cars. That is good. We make\nmore money. They said to me: We are giving up those small cars to other\ncompanies, to foreign companies.\n  I believed that was wrong. I said you need to have diversity.\n  They decided to go their way.\n  I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the management over there\nresponsible for this. They didn't take the lead in research and\ndevelopment of advanced technology vehicles. They put too many of their\nresources into gas guzzlers.\n  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 10 minutes.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mrs. BOXER. They ignored signs that their future success would depend\non an ability to adapt to a changing business climate with innovation\nand new technologies. When I learned of the financial problems facing\nGM, Ford, and Chrysler, I viewed a possible rescue plan as an\nopportunity to help Detroit embrace new technologies that could lead\nthem toward a strong and prosperous future. I still think, because of\nthe White House's objection, the bill before us is making a big mistake\nbecause I wanted to make sure we could say in this bridge loan the\nfunds could not be used to pursue litigation related to the California\nwaiver.\n  Well, the administration will not go for that. We know where they\nstand on energy independence, we know where they stand on fighting\nglobal warming, on clean cars. They stand nowhere--or I should say they\nstand somewhere in a bad place. If the big three would embrace the\nCalifornia waiver, understanding that 19 other States are with us, and\nproduce cars to meet the goals, the very clean-air goals we have there,\nI think we would be a leader in the world. I see that in our future. I\nreally do.\n  I know in your State, Mr. President, we are seeing a whole new range\nof manufacturing dealing with solar panels. It is very exciting. This\nis the future. This is the future. Our big three should be leading the\nway. I hope they got the message in this last runup of gas prices. I\nhope they get the message that there is global warming and that we are\ngoing to have to deal with it if our planet is to survive.\n  I am confident that President-elect Obama is going to approve the\nwaiver. I am confident that when he does that, it is going to be a big\nhelp to the big three because they will really buckle down.\n  By the way, we are going to reimburse this technology fund, they are\ngoing to move ahead and they are going to meet the requirements with\nthe cleanest cars possible, and it will be a new day. Now, if all three\nof them do it and two of them survive in the future, that may be the\nway. We do not know. But what we do know is that today, this day,\nDecember 11, so close to Christmas, we do know that to walk away\nwithout helping this important industry could lead--could lead--to a\nfar deeper recession and even toward a depression.\n  With this auto retooling program from which these funds are being\nborrowed, this will be replenished. Speaker Pelosi has indicated to me\npersonally that they will be replenished. I call on my colleagues in\nthe Senate to support quick replenishment of the program, which is\nessential to the effort of repositioning the U.S. at the forefront of\nnew transportation and advanced battery technologies.\n  You know, we have startup companies in my State--very exciting. One\nof them is called Tesla Motors and the other is Fisker Automotive. That\nis two of them. They are leading the effort to develop advanced\ntechnology batteries, zero-emission cars, and high-performance plug-in\nhybrid electric vehicles. I have driven some of these cars. They are\nextraordinary. These companies and others, including the big three, are\nprocessing section 136 loan applications to retool manufacturing plants\nand speed up the development of technology that will put the United\nStates right out in front, leading the way to clean cars and clean\ntechnology.\n  I wish to point out that no bill is perfect. I could write a bill\nthat would be far better for me. Every Senator could. But there is\nsignificant taxpayer oversight in this bill, as well as benchmarks that\nthe big three must meet in order to continue to receive Government\nassistance.\n  By January 1, the car czar will develop benchmarks to determine how\nto assess each company's progress in turning its plans submitted to\nCongress into long-term restructuring plans. The benchmarks will focus\non how the big three will restructure their businesses for long-term\nviability, increased fuel efficiency, advanced technology, managing\ndebt, capitalization, and future cost requirements.\n  So to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say: Let them\ngo bankrupt, it is better, they will restructure, we are going to make\nsure they restructure without declaring bankruptcy and without\nunloading all of the cost of that bankruptcy onto the backs of\ntaxpayers. If any of the big three fail to submit long-term\nrestructuring plans by March 31, 2009, the car czar has the authority\nto call the loan or cancel the loan commitment within 30 days,\nrequiring the loan to be paid back at an accelerated rate.\n  Taxpayers will recover the cost of these loans over 7 years at a rate\nof 5 percent for the first 5 and 9 percent thereafter. The car czar\nwill have access to all financial records of the big three and will\nhave the ability to prohibit asset sales or possible investments over\n$100 million, which will protect U.S. jobs being outsourced. The\nGovernment will have senior debt status for repayment of the loans,\nmeaning we are in the front of the line to recover loan payments\nregardless of the companies' success. Stock warrants will ensure the\ntaxpayers benefit from any future growth these companies may\nexperience. The bill prohibits golden parachutes, puts limits on\nexecutive compensation and bonus compensation to top employees, and it\nrequires the companies to divest from any private jet investments. The\npayment of dividends to shareholders will be prohibited during the loan\nperiod. In other words, there is every incentive for these companies to\nturn their companies around. They want to pay dividends to\nshareholders, they want to get bonuses, they want to get back to\nbusiness as usual. But we say: Before you do, you have to pay us back.\nThey have a lot of reasons to make this turnaround.\n  The loan program will be subject to strict auditing by the\nComptroller General and the GAO. The car czar will be tasked with\nfacilitating agreements between unions, retirees, debtholders,\ncreditors, suppliers, auto dealers, and shareholders to reduce costs\nand ensure long-term viability.\n  Again, I say to my colleagues who are saying let them go bankrupt,\ntake a look at this bill. You are saying let them go bankrupt because\nthey will have to restructure. We say restructure without the\nbankruptcy because if, in fact, there is a bankruptcy declared, 80\npercent of the American people say they will not buy a car from a\ncompany that has gone bankrupt. I understood that. So this avoids the\nbankruptcy and allows them to restructure. If we fail to do this, we\nare playing Russian roulette with this recession. In times of crisis,\nyou have to see opportunities.\n  I believe, as a major critic of the car companies since the 1980s\nwhen I was here in the House of Representatives, they have finally\ngotten the message. It has taken them too long. They have been too\narrogant. They have not seen the world changing. They have not noticed\nglobal warming. They have been blinded to so many things that were\nhappening around them. They were hostile to California and the 19 other\nStates that want to clean up our environment and get better fuel\nmileage, have clean cars. Instead of embracing those States and working\nwith those States--by the way, those 19 States and California represent\na majority of the American people. A majority of the American people\nwant clean cars.\n  Now, it may have taken this horrific turn of events to get the\nmessage through, but clearly the message must be getting through.\nJeffrey Sachs wrote recently in the Washington Post:\n\n       American-made fuel-cell cars may be a large-scale reality\n     within a decade. Success would dramatically improve energy\n     and national security and U.S. global competitiveness.\n\n  Now, this is the opportunity. But guess what. If we do not act, if we\ndo not act and this recession keeps deepening, we will not have this\nchance. We will be the only industrialized democracy without a domestic\nauto company\n\n[[Page S10901]]\n\nand without that manufacturing base. So we have to do what is necessary\nto push Detroit toward a stronger, more efficient future. It may be\nthat at some point in the future, that industry will have a different\nlook to it. Maybe it will have a different look to it. We do not know\nthat. But what we do know now is that what has hit Detroit is far more\nthan making the wrong choices about what cars they produce. I think\nthey made those wrong choices, but it is far bigger than that because\nevery company in America and outside of America that is making cars is\nsuffering today because of the terrible recession we are in, because of\na lack of consumer confidence, because of a loss of equity in the stock\nmarket, because of home foreclosures, because of all of these things.\n  So I say you never know what could happen in the future. I am not\nable to predict it because I cannot. But I know what I have to do now.\nI have to think about those three things: jobs, jobs, and jobs. When I\nthink about that, and I recognize that just today we had more filings\nfor unemployment insurance than we have had in 26 years, I say for us\nto walk away from this without this scaled-down bridge loan would be\nplaying Russian roulette with this recession. I love my country too\nmuch to do that. With all of the problems I have with Detroit, I will\nsupport helping them in this fashion.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10895"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.5665799835696816, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}