[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24283-24285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            BAILOUT DEMANDS

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Americans are once again being asked to 
foot the bill for yet another very urgent bailout, as it is termed. In 
October, Congress voted for an unprecedented $750 billion bailout of 
Wall Street. Now much of the same alarmist rhetoric is being employed 
to pressure Members to act quickly.
  The latest bailout demand making the rounds of Washington is for the 
Big Three in the auto industry. The Democrats would have you believe 
the proposed bailout is all about saving jobs. But having been in 
Washington long enough, my instincts led me to dig deeper, where I 
unearthed the green roots hiding behind the ``bailing out'' rhetoric. 
It now appears that much of what you have heard in the media about the 
auto bailout being about jobs has been misleading. In fact, there are 
the usual suspects working behind the scene to subvert the auto bailout 
and ultimately betray autoworkers.
  These are the facts. The proposed $25 billion bailout of Detroit now 
appears to have been hijacked by the powerful environmental lobby. When 
I say ``powerful,'' it is by far the most powerful lobby and best 
financed lobby--those out in Hollywood I have referred to many times, 
moveon.org, George Soros, the Michael Moores--they talk millions and 
millions of dollars. They are indeed the powerful lobby.
  I suggest there is an idea that came to fruition from the November 19 
Wall Street Journal. They ask, in this Wall Street Journal editorial:

       When is $25 billion in taxpayer cash insufficient to bail 
     out Detroit's auto makers?

  The answer:

       When the money is a tool of the Congressional industrial 
     policy to turn GM, Ford and Chrysler into agents of the 
     Sierra Club and other green lobbies.

  According to the Wall Street Journal, the auto bailout has 
degenerated into a tool to ``make Detroit a subsidiary of the Sierra 
Club.''
  We hear proponents of the auto bailout endlessly saying this is all 
about jobs. But the truth is, this bailout appears to be about 
environmental lobbies taking over the U.S. auto industry.
  The Wall Street Journal explains further, and I am quoting again:

       In their public statements, proponents describe the bailout 
     as an attempt to save jobs, American manufacturing and the 
     middle-class way of life. But look closely and you can see 
     that what's really going on is an attempt to use taxpayer 
     money to remake Detroit in the image of the modern 
     environmental movement. Given a choice between

[[Page 24284]]

     greens and blue-collar workers, Congress puts greens first.

  That was an interesting quote in the article, that really has delved 
into this thing and talks about what the real motivation is behind it.
  How did this attempt at a green takeover of Detroit come about? 
Congress approved $25 billion for Detroit earlier this year for ``green 
retooling.'' President Bush--when this came up, the need came up to 
have the $25 billion--proposed to revise that $25 billion, the same 
amount of money, and allow it to be used for Detroit's general purposes 
by eliminating the green conditions. In other words, the amount of 
money there that everyone is so anxious to get in there, that they say 
is going to resolve the problem, is there and it is available today, 
but it has been rejected. That shows the choice between green and blue 
collar is very clear.
  The Wall Street Journal reported:

       Democratic leaders refused. They are insisting instead that 
     the Bush administration give Detroit another $25 billion in 
     cash.

  Let's keep in mind this is the second $25 billion we are talking 
about, not the first. ``The Bush administration's proposal is 
unacceptable,'' declared my colleague, Senate majority leader Harry 
Reid.
  The Wall Street Journal asks, and I am quoting again now:

       If the problem is so urgent, why keep the green chains on 
     that first $25 billion? General Motors in particular is 
     saying that it may have to declare bankruptcy by the end of 
     the year without a taxpayer capital injection. Aren't jobs at 
     stake?

  Again, this is the choice being given. But the jobs do not appear to 
be the overriding concern when it comes to the proposed bailout. A 
November 13 commentary in the Chicago Sun-Times bluntly declared that 
Congress should ``attach environmental strings to the Big Three 
bailout.''

       The auto industry occupies a critical position, not just in 
     the U.S. economy, but also in the struggle to cope with 
     climate change and the energy crisis. The government has 
     immense leverage right now to force the Big Three to make 
     progress on multiple fronts and should and should not be 
     afraid to use it.

  This is what Andrew Leonard wrote in the Sun-Times.

       Barack Obama has spoken many times of his ambitious plans 
     to steer the U.S. toward a future where Americans are driving 
     fuel-efficient cars that run on renewable energy. If the 
     government is going to bail out the auto industry, it should 
     do so only with the explicit requirement that the Big Three 
     accelerate down that road as fast as they can.

  Again, I am quoting from the Sun-Times. One of the key ``green 
strings'' that the environmental lobby wants to impose on Detroit is 
making the Corporate Average Fuel Economy--that is the CAFE standards--
more draconian than they are today.
  My colleague, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, wants conditions on the 
auto bailout that would mandate auto companies increase their average 
fuel economy to 40 miles per gallon in 10 years and then 50 miles per 
gallon a mere 2 years later, in 2020. He also reportedly wants 
requirements for an ``increased production of hybrids, flex-fuel and 
electric vehicles,'' according to Congress Daily.
  My colleague, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, has also tied auto 
bailout money to increased CAFE standards:

       Congress should require that the automakers shift to a new 
     business model that focuses on hybrid, electric, and other 
     next generation vehicle technologies.

  She wrote that on November 14. She even expands the mandates to 
include costly global warming concerns by ``requiring the NHTSA to use 
the Energy Information Administration's most accurate gasoline price 
projection and consider global benefits from reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions when setting CAFE standards.''
  Again that is a quote.
  The Wall Street Journal countered with a commonsense alternative to 
increasing CAFE standards.

       If Congress wants to ease the immediate burden on Detroit, 
     it could also ease the onerous fleet-mileage standards (CAFE 
     rules) that force the companies to make cars domestically 
     that are unprofitable. A mere tweak would help a lot--for 
     example, simply allowing Congress to meet CAFE standards by 
     counting the cars it makes at home and abroad.
       If you include them all, they would be able to meet these 
     standards.
       This alone might save Chrysler from bankruptcy. But 
     Congress won't budge on that simple change.

  This latest bout of environmental thuggery is not an isolated 
incident. The legislative goals of Democrats and their environmental 
allies reveal that saving jobs is not their highest priority. 
President-elect Obama has pledged to grant California a global-warming-
motivated waiver to allow the State to demand its own standards of 
emission reductions from new automobiles. This would essentially allow 
a State-by-State approach, thus creating a patchwork of regulatory 
compliance regimes in addition to the Federal standard that would be 
even more costly for automobile manufacturers.
  We have gone through this before. We have had this same suggestion 
being made. If there is any single thing that would increase the price 
of cars and drive them out of the market, it would be to let each State 
determine what its own standards are going to be. It cannot work.
  The Wall Street Journal summed up this attempted hostile green 
takeover and the efforts to create an ``Environmental Motor Company'' 
this way:

       All of this shows that Democrats don't merely want to save 
     jobs. They want an entirely different American auto industry 
     that serves goals other than selling cars to consumers. The 
     green lobbies have disliked Detroit for decades--for 
     resisting fleet mileage standards and having the audacity to 
     make SUVs, trucks and other vehicles that people have wanted 
     to buy but that violate the modern environmental pieties. For 
     the greens, the bailout is their main chance to remake 
     Detroit according to their dictates.

  That is the height of us in Government saying our wisdom is so much 
greater than the private sector that we are going to impose that on 
this industry. Now the problems are there.
  They continued:

       The more realistic alternative to this utopian green vision 
     is to let GM or Chrysler file for Chapter 11 like any other 
     company that can't pay its bills.
       The immediate cost would be severe. At least bankruptcy 
     would provide the political and legal means for them to 
     evolve into smaller, more competitive companies. Taxpayers 
     should not be asked to finance a green industrial policy 
     promoted by lobbyists and Congressmen who know nothing about 
     what it takes to make a car, much less what it takes to make 
     a profit.

  You have to look at this. I wonder sometimes, if we had not been so 
quick and so generous to come up with $700 billion in this bailout, 
that perhaps they would not be lining up. Who is going to be standing 
in line after the auto industry? I don't think anybody knows--I don't--
but someone is. They are waiting to see what kind of results there are. 
Is it Government's role to run businesses from Washington and to 
finance those businesses? Is it necessary?
  I have gotten a lot of criticism because I have been quite outspoken 
in opposition to the $700 billion bailout. But I would like to do one 
thing; that is, if there is one thing people have not stopped to think 
about, that is the amount of $700 billion. What is $700 billion? It is 
very difficult for me and for anyone else, I think, to think in terms 
of those billions of dollars. But I did some research. I found that 
there are 139 million families, households in America, who file tax 
returns. If you do your simple math, 139 million families and $700 
billion in a bailout, that is $5,000 a family. If people think in terms 
of that, maybe they will get a little bit concerned.
  We have already spent, of that--Secretary Paulson--$125 billion on 
nine large banks. This is not what they said or what he said 2 weeks 
prior to the October 1 vote. What he said at that time was: We have to 
have $700 billion to buy damaged assets, and it is going to take $700 
billion. If this continues to happen, we are going to have another 
Great Depression.
  And we got all excited and concerned. Granted, I know Secretary 
Paulson is a very knowledgeable person. But for him to make that case, 
get the money, and then spend it on something else is something that is 
very difficult to understand.
  I would suggest that when we drafted that law, which I opposed at the 
time,

[[Page 24285]]

that was in two increments--actually, three. The first $250 billion was 
going to be handed to him to go ahead and spend as he wanted to, and 
then, if he needed $100 billion more, the President could see to it 
that they got it. That has already happened. They have $350 billon, of 
which $60 billion is left and has not been spent as of this moment in 
time, to my knowledge. I got my information personally from them last 
Tuesday.
  So where we are today is we are sitting on $60 billion. He has 
described this as a cushion. When I say ``he,'' I am talking about 
Secretary Paulson. So we need to now think about the other $350 billion 
because it appears, as he said, the financial markets have been 
stabilized. If this is true, then maybe we do not need to get into that 
other $350 billion. Keep in mind, we have $60 billion there on the 
table ready to be used anyway.
  So what I have done is drafted legislation that is called S. 3697. We 
have some Democrats and some Republicans cosponsoring this. It is not a 
freeze. I wish it were. I wish I could craft a piece of legislation 
that said: Let's take the $350 billion and give it all back to the 
taxpayers; it belongs to them. But we know that would not fly. So 
instead of that, we went ahead and did it to make a modest change in 
the system.
  As the law is drafted right now, if the request is made by the 
Treasury Secretary, whether Secretary Paulson or another person, that 
money is going to automatically come to them if no one objects while we 
are in session for 15 days. Well, we are going to go out of session 
probably tomorrow and very likely will not be coming back until January 
6. That means that if any need is there, all he has to do is say so and 
the money will come forward.
  So what we have done is change--actually, we only changed one word. 
The word we changed was ``unless'' and ``until.'' I do not have it 
right here, but it says the money can be accessed unless Congress stops 
them from doing it. However, by changing that to ``until,'' that means 
it cannot be accessed until we take a positive action in the Senate. 
That is what I think is perhaps not nearly enough protection, but it is 
some protection. I would encourage colleagues to rally around this 
because there is no other means out there right now, no other vehicle 
that anyone has put forward that is going to resolve this problem. It 
is going to keep the other $350 billion, and that is about $2,500 for 
every family in America who pays taxes and files a tax return. There is 
no other way of doing it except for this bill.
  So I would encourage our Members to join in this effort. And it is 
going to have to be done today. If it is not done today, it is not 
going to be done. I hope the people outside realize there are a few of 
us here who realize we want to stop this train, particularly if 
Secretary Paulson is correct, as he believes he is, when he says the 
financial markets have been stabilized. So we have S. 3697. I would 
encourage my colleagues to come down and sign this so we can actually 
bring it up and vote on it and have it become a reality.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.

                          ____________________