[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24567-24573]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1533 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1533

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House

[[Page 24568]]

     is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of December 13, 2008, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of a measure relating to 
     financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, 
     and for other purposes.
       Sec. 2.  House Resolutions 1516 and 1526 are laid on the 
     table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on House Resolution 1533.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1533 waives clause 6(a) of rule 
XIII, which would require a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the 
same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. The waiver would 
apply to any rule reported through the legislative day of December 13, 
2008, that provides for consideration or disposition of a measure to 
authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers.
  This is not an unusual procedure, particularly at the end of a 
legislative session. I want to point out that my friends on the other 
side of the aisle in the 109th Congress reported at least 21 rules that 
allowed for same-day consideration. In fact, five of those rules waived 
this requirement against any rule reported from the committee. This 
rule is for a true emergency. It is for one purpose, and that is to 
help facilitate the prompt consideration of bipartisan legislation that 
will prevent the collapse of our domestic auto industry.
  I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support this rule so 
we can move quickly to address this economic crisis before the end of 
the year and the end of this Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I was just talking to my very good friend, my fellow 
Californian, Mr. Lungren, and he reminded me that what I should be 
doing is expressing my appreciation to the very distinguished Chair of 
the Committee on Rules for complimenting me on the fine work product of 
the past Congress when it comes to reporting out measures such as this.
  But I will say, Madam Speaker, that I rise in strong opposition to 
this rule. I rise in opposition to this rule because it is a martial 
law rule which provides the opportunity for this measure to come to the 
floor at any time during the next 4 days. And it is unprecedented. And 
I know that the gentlewoman has pointed to the fact that at the end of 
the Congress, it is very often that measures like this are utilized. 
But there is not a strong bipartisan consensus for us to proceed with 
the measure that is being considered now.
  This is, in fact, a $15 billion bailout bill that is not impacting 
just an entire industry, it's impacting three particular entities 
within that industry, and to do it under a completely closed process. 
The distinguished Chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. 
Frank, acknowledged upstairs, as was stated by the ranking Republican, 
Mr. Bachus, this was a completely closed process, and we find this to 
be very, very unfortunate that we're here trying to do this in such a 
manner.
  Now, when we were upstairs in the Rules Committee, one of the things 
that has come forward is the fact that the American people are hurting. 
We all know that. We very much need to take steps to ensure that we can 
get this economy growing, and there is a bipartisan consensus on the 
need to grow our economy. We've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, as 
we all know, and in light of that, it is imperative that we take 
immediate action to try to create jobs for American workers. And that's 
the reason that my colleague Mr. Diaz-Balart, the gentleman from Miami, 
and I joined in the Rules Committee last night to do something that 
most people thought we were going to do last spring and we should have 
done last spring. And there was acknowledgment, bipartisan 
acknowledgment, by Members, including Members of the leadership in the 
majority, that we would, in fact, quite possibly consider this measure 
in a lame duck session. And I'm referring, of course, to the very 
important U.S.-Columbia Free Trade Agreement.
  Last April 10, Madam Speaker, there was a rigorous debate here, and 
we for the first time ever saw the Speaker of the House take action 
which subverted the 1974 Trade Act. Basically sent a message that said 
the following: We as Americans want to embark on negotiations with the 
country, and under the traditional, what has existed since 1974, so-
called fast-track authority, or what we refer to now as trade promotion 
authority existed, so that that measure would come back to the Congress 
and there would be an up-or-down vote. And for the first time ever in 
basically decades and decades, since 1974, we saw that plan completely 
thrown out the window. That promise that had been made was thrown out 
the window. But there was one hope left, and that hope was that after 
the election, in a post-election session, which is where we are right 
now, we would have an opportunity for a debate and a vote as to whether 
or not we would pry open the market in Colombia, 40 million consumers 
strong, and create an opportunity for U.S. workers in Indiana, in Ohio, 
in Illinois, all across this country to have a chance to sell their 
products into Colombia. That's really what this agreement is all about. 
It's all about opening up access to their markets so that we can create 
good jobs.
  Now, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules last night was 
talking about the economic challenges that are faced, the economic 
difficulty, the devastation that exists in Rochester, Buffalo, and 
other parts of upstate New York. We recognize that very well. Kodak is 
one of her largest employers, Madam Speaker, and I believe that by 
virtue of passing this U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we will be 
able to create more good jobs in upstate New York so that their 
products can be exported into Colombia.
  Now, there are other States that have been particularly hard hit with 
this economic downturn that we're facing today. States like Ohio. We 
regularly hear from our colleagues in Ohio about the devastation that 
has existed there. One of the great companies in Ohio happens to be 
Whirlpool, and we know that right now the hardworking men and women in 
Ohio at the Whirlpool Company want to have an opportunity to sell 
washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, and other products that 
Whirlpool manufactures. And guess what. Under the present structure, 
Madam Speaker, it's very unfortunate there is a tariff, a tax, on the 
work product from those American workers in Ohio who are seeking to get 
their product into Colombia. And what is it that we have had over the 
last 7 or 8 months? An indication from the April 10 decision that was 
made here to not proceed with the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. 
There was a sense that in this lame duck session we would, in fact, 
consider that.
  Madam Speaker, I would argue that as important as it was for us to 
pass that U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement on April 10, it is much, 
much more important today. Why? Because we have seen hundreds of 
thousands of our fellow Americans lose their jobs and we are here at 
this moment, at this moment, Madam Speaker, talking about the 
imperative of creating jobs right here in the United States of America 
so that they don't flee overseas.
  And I will say that I mentioned Ohio. It's also important. We're 
talking about the automobile industry. There is a company called 
Caterpillar, which is headquartered in Peoria, Illinois. And 
Caterpillar workers are some of the most dedicated, hardworking, 
productive workers of any company in this country. And, Madam Speaker, 
because of the existence of that tariff, the

[[Page 24569]]

workers who manufacture Caterpillar tractors are unable to sell those 
tractors into that very important 40 million-strong economy of Colombia 
because of the fact that we have been recalcitrant and not moved ahead 
with even a debate or a vote on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  So, Madam Speaker, I have to say that we have a great opportunity 
with this rule. Mr. Diaz-Balart and I, as I said, offered this 
amendment upstairs which would have allowed us to do what last April 
10--we would have never thought last April 10, by the way, that we 
would be here dealing with the automobile industry as we are. But last 
April 10 there was an indication by many, including the distinguished 
Chair of the Committee on Rules, who said that at that point she was 
voting to delay consideration of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement.
  Well, Madam Speaker, today is the day. We all know and we hope and 
pray that this is the end of the work of the 110th Congress. The 111th 
Congress will be convening on January 6 and we will begin anew. But 
guess what. If we don't pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement 
right now, we have thrown years of negotiations out the door. We will 
see our governments have to start from scratch on this very, very 
important agreement.
  And the one thing that I haven't mentioned that I know my friend Mr. 
Diaz-Balart will discuss is the very important strategic interest that 
we have in strengthening our strongest ally on the South American 
continent.

                              {time}  1445

  We all recognize that the modern history of Colombia has been 
horrendous, but I argue that the last 5 years have brought us the 
greatest transformation of any country in a 5-year period of time in 
modern history. The reason I say that is that if you look at the human 
rights violations, if you look at the actions of the FARC, the 
paramilitaries, and a wide range of other entities there, if you look 
at the murder that has taken place in the past of union leaders, and 
you compare that to the changes of today, it is important for us to 
realize that we have seen an amazing transformation.
  Now, I acknowledge that in the past several weeks, some very 
unfortunate reports have come to the forefront, but I believe that the 
tragic murders that have taken place, and the resignation of military 
leaders and the firing of military leaders because of that, underscores 
how important it is for us to proceed with this agreement, which will 
strengthen the economic ties and, I believe, bring about a greater 
opportunity for the recognition of human rights in Colombia.
  So we are here at this moment focusing our attention on how it is 
that we can deal with the automobile industry and create good American 
jobs. I believe that right now we have an opportunity to do this very, 
very important thing, and that is open up that market so that U.S. 
workers can sell their products into Colombia. I hope very much that we 
are able to see that action taken today.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 
minutes to my very good friend, my Rules Committee colleague from 
Miami, who joined me in coauthoring the amendment about which I was 
just speaking.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend, Mr. Dreier, 
and echo his words.
  Madam Speaker, I was hoping that we would not see this legislation 
brought forth under a martial law rule that is going to change, is 
going to waive, is going to waive the rules of the House so that 
legislation that was filed just a little while ago does not have 24 
hours for the American people and the membership of this House to 
review and study. I think that it was not necessary to do this. I think 
it's unfortunate for the martial law rule to have been brought forth to 
close down this process absolutely.
  The legislation that the House would be considering, obviously, with 
regard to the automobile industry, deals with a very important 
industry. I also believe that, as Mr. Dreier has stated, the U.S.-
Colombia Free Trade Agreement is one step that this Congress could and 
should take that would create jobs for the American people, and it 
would create jobs throughout the entire Nation. I was hoping, Madam 
Speaker, that after the election, and the decibels of the electoral 
debate have been turned down, that we could have had consideration and 
a vote on that important, implementing legislation, legislation to 
implement the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  It is most unfortunate that the majority leadership has decided, in 
effect, to continue its policy, really, that offends our relationship 
with our best, best ally in South America. It hurts that relationship 
at this critical time, in addition to preventing in this delicate 
economic time, the creation of many, many jobs in the United States.
  So it's most unfortunate that the majority leadership has decided to 
act in this irresponsible manner, not only closing down, unnecessarily, 
the process with regard to the legislation brought forth today, 
unnecessarily, but failing to consider that most important implementary 
legislation with regard to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I am 
disappointed, Madam Speaker, and would have hoped that we would have 
seen another attitude after the election.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 5 
minutes to the newly elected chairman of the Republican Conference, my 
good friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, we come to this floor in the midst of an 
extraordinary time in the life of this economy and in the life of our 
cherished domestic automotive industry.
  The American automotive industry is facing a financial crisis. 
Millions of jobs are on the line. Let me say from my heart, Madam 
Speaker, inaction by this Congress is not an option, but I rise in 
opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the legislation 
that will be brought to the floor under this rule, because I believe 
the American people know we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way 
back to a growing economy.
  We cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a vibrant 
automotive sector here in the United States. The legislation that will 
come before the Congress today will take $15 billion in taxpayer money 
and make it available to the automotive industry, appoint something in 
the form of a car czar for the purpose of organizing and encouraging 
the kinds of changes in the industry that Washington, D.C. believes are 
appropriate.
  But I would say the bailout proposed by the White House and 
congressional Democrats is fundamentally flawed. It exposes the 
American taxpayer to more debt, fails to reorganize our domestic auto 
manufacturers, and does not fix the immediate credit crisis that those 
good companies are facing.
  Instead, the Democrat bill will actually prevent the necessary 
changes and force us back into the same situation where taxpayers will 
undoubtedly be asked to bail this industry out again and again and 
again. The Democrat bailout also seeks to create, as I mentioned, 
something known as a car czar with the responsibilities of making car 
companies more profitable, more fiscally responsible. Well, trusting a 
Washington bureaucrat, who has probably never even tightened a lug nut, 
with fixing what ails the American automotive industry is not the 
answer.
  Today, House Republicans propose the American Automotive 
Reorganization and Recovery Plan. It is an effort to lock in the 
restructuring promised over the last few weeks with firm benchmarks and 
a tight timeline. Also, in the place of a taxpayer-funded government 
bailout, House Republicans would encourage private investment to 
finance a Detroit recovery in this year and the next. It is a solution 
that will protect our domestic auto industry and the American taxpayer, 
and that must be paramount in our interest.
  Under the Republican plan, the Big Three, having presented their 
plans for

[[Page 24570]]

restructuring, would be required to lock in a tight timeline with a 
high degree of specificity about the kinds of changes that will make 
our domestic auto industry truly competitive and on parity with those 
cherished companies that have made foreign investments and are 
manufacturing cars here in the United States.
  Secondly, we would establish a process for reaching an expedited 
agreement. Instead of nationalizing America's auto companies by having 
the Federal Government take a stake interest in those companies, an 
equity and stock position, we would rather say that because of the many 
legal and contractual hurdles to restructuring, the companies would be 
urged to accomplish a restructuring through the use of a prepackaged 
bankruptcy or other legal mechanism to bring all stakeholders to the 
table for an agreed-upon determination about their future.
  With regard to interim financing, again, Madam Speaker, we would not 
look to the Federal Treasury to finance a recovery in Detroit, but, 
rather, we would look to the private sector. We would create a hand up, 
not a hand out, by creating an FDIC-style insurance program where auto 
companies could be required to purchase insurance as a backstop to 
private lending that's made into their industry. Now, many of us 
believe that this would loosen up an extraordinary amount of financing, 
the so-called debtor-in-possession financing, which is so scarce in our 
economy today--so a serious reorganization and recovery plan, with hard 
timelines and urgency.
  Secondly, a process using the existing judicial institutions of this 
country to enforce that restructuring; and, thirdly, a priming of the 
pump with a new federally backed insurance program to encourage 
investment in Detroit is the antidote to what ails us. Simply handing 
$15 billion out to Detroit today, however popular it may be with some 
Americans, I believe, in my heart, it would ultimately be a disservice 
to the American taxpayer, to our children, and our grandchildren.
  So I urge consideration of the Republican plan, the American 
Automotive Reorganization and Recovery Plan. I urge my Democrat 
colleagues to allow such a proposal to come to the floor, and I oppose 
this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire of my colleague if he has more speakers.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman would yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes.
  Mr. DREIER. I would say, absolutely, we have a lot of people who want 
to speak in opposition to this martial law rule. I would inquire of my 
friend if she has any speakers.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am the last speaker on my side.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to our colleague from Gold River, California (Mr. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to this rule because it does not recognize that occasionally 
Congress does something right. I remember being on this floor some 20 
years ago and debating with then the distinguished chairman of the 
House Judiciary Committee, Peter Rodino, about reform of the Bankruptcy 
Code and specifically chapter 11.
  The question at that time was whether or not we are going to adapt 
the Bankruptcy Code so that chapter 11 would allow companies large and 
small to restructure themselves so that they could go on as 
enterprising entities, but now we are told that somehow there is 
something special about the Big Three auto manufacturers in Detroit 
that will not allow them to go through the process that we had Delta 
Airlines go through, that we have had very, very many companies go 
through. Somehow, it has been asserted that chapter 11 means death and 
destruction. Chapter 11 doesn't mean death and destruction, it means 
restructuring and rebirth.
  What happens is, when you go into bankruptcy court, everything is on 
the table. What we have heard discussed around here, and what's being 
presented to us is bankruptcy-lite. It's like bankruptcy, but we are 
not going to require it to be bankruptcy. Why? Because, somehow, that 
doesn't work.
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, it does work. And it doesn't put the 
American people, the taxpayers, behind promises that can't be kept. 
Because in a bankruptcy court, the judge requires everybody to put 
their cards on the table, and then a decision is made as to what is the 
best interest of the entity so that they may continue to operate.
  So you have to ask yourself, why do people not want to go through 
bankruptcy? Perhaps it's so that they don't have to do those things 
that would be required to make them enterprising entities. Now we have 
a circumstance where we are going to create a car czar, or czarina, to 
tell the manufacturers how they ought to operate their businesses, the 
ultimate irony, Congress telling somebody else how they ought to 
operate their businesses in an economic fashion.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
is remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining; 
the gentlewoman from New York has 29 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1 
minute to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, my good 
friend from Livonia, Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the chairman. I rise in support of the same-day 
rule.
  It has been an anxious holiday season in Michigan and the Midwest in 
the auto industry and the manufacturing sector. They have seen Congress 
perform its rightful oversight over their request for a bridge loan 
from the taxpayers of the United States. And today, after due 
deliberation, I think it is appropriate that we have a vote on this 
legislation, because behind all the statistics and all the talk of 
bankruptcies are hard-working people who deserve to know an answer to a 
fundamental question: Does the Congress of the United States care about 
them?
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 
minutes to my friend from Humble, Texas, Judge Poe.
  Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, well, here we go again, rushing into another 
bailout without appropriate congressional hearings. And what have the 
Big Three auto boys done to restructure their businesses after they 
first flew up here on their big private jets? Absolutely nothing. They 
just showed up here again demanding American money.
  They say they are too big to fail. Madam Speaker, they have already 
failed, but they want the American citizen to pay for their mess.
  So with the option before us today, we are going to let the Federal 
Government take over the auto industry and even decide what kind of car 
we should build. Not only that, we are going to appoint a ``Car Czar'' 
to manage how it is done.
  The underlying bill gives the ``Car Czar'' complete control over the 
auto industry. Can you imagine what a Federal Government-made car will 
look like? Most likely it will have a sail, solar panels, or even a 
windmill on top. It will be the typical Federal project. It will be too 
expensive, won't work, and we will never get rid of it.
  With this bill, we are subsidizing failing companies. It is not the 
American way to subsidize failure. This is just like what we continue 
to do with Amtrak. Taxpayers pay millions of dollars every year to 
subsidize the failing passenger rail industry. So if we like Amtrak, we 
are going to love the new Federal car industry.
  As President-elect Obama said on ``Meet the Press'' Sunday: ``We 
don't want government to run companies. Generally, government 
historically hasn't done that very well.'' I agree completely.
  What the Big Three need to do is reorganize under the bankruptcy laws 
to prevent failure and job loss, just like the airlines did. The Big 
Three saying bankruptcy will cause 100 percent job loss is nonsense. It 
is just the politics of fear.

[[Page 24571]]

  People say this isn't a bailout, but that is exactly what it is. It 
is not a bridge loan. And if it is a bridge loan, then it is a bridge 
loan to nowhere.
  Folks, this is nothing more than a down payment on a future bigger 
taxpayer-funded corporate welfare bailout.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the 
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules if she might consider 
yielding, she has 29 minutes remaining, maybe 5 or 10 minutes of her 
time to us. We have a number of speakers on our side.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Would the gentleman tell me how many speakers he has 
and what time is he talking about.
  Mr. DREIER. Maybe 10 minutes of time. We have a number of speakers 
who have come, and you know how it goes on the management of debate 
here.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. We would really like to see this move forward, Mr. 
Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. I understand you want to move this forward as 
expeditiously as possible. We have a lot of Members who are hoping very 
much to have the chance to speak on this. We can see Members coming in.
  I just, as a courtesy, would like to inquire of the Chair if she 
would yield us maybe 10 minutes of her time. If she had speakers, I 
would completely understand why that wouldn't be the case, but I just 
don't see any speakers on the other side, and if that would be 
possible, I would very much appreciate it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 additional minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5 additional minutes, for 
a total now of 12 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the 
gentlewoman from Rochester for yielding me this time.
  At this juncture, I would like to, Madam Speaker, yield 2 minutes to 
our hardworking colleague from Harrison Township, Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule, because we 
do need to act to support our domestic auto industry, and failure to 
act by Congress on bridge loans to our domestic auto industry will have 
catastrophic effects on our workers, on our economy, as well as our 
national security. Inaction is simply not an option.
  In recent years, the domestic auto industry has been undergoing 
significant restructuring in an effort to become more competitive with 
foreign automakers. More needs to be done certainly, but to suggest 
that nothing has been done is inaccurate and does not recognize the 
significant sacrifices made by workers and the tough decisions made by 
the Big Three.
  They are also changing their product mix to better reflect the 
current marketplace demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. It is not 
Toyota that offers the most models that get over 30 miles per gallon. 
It is General Motors. It is not Honda that makes the highest mileage 
SUV in the world. It is Ford with the Ford Escape.
  We cannot forget the domestic auto industry and what they have meant 
to America. In fact, during World War II, southeast Michigan was known 
as the ``arsenal of democracy'' because we literally had the 
manufacturing capability that led the world to peace by building those 
armaments, and we expanded freedom across the globe.
  Then on September 11, 2001, that horrific day when the terrorists 
murdered nearly 3,000 of our fellow Americans, they had an additional 
goal, and that was to destroy our economy. At that time, while the 
Federal Government was properly providing bailout support to the 
devastated airlines, it was the domestic auto industry, led by General 
Motors and their Keep America Rolling Program, which kept customers in 
the showrooms, workers on the factory floors, and did indeed keep 
America rolling.
  The cost to our economy of failure of one or more of these companies 
will be stark. Experts have indicated that this would cause a cascade 
of bankruptcies across the economy and lead to the loss of as many as 3 
million jobs. The cost of this calamity to the taxpayers would be 
multiple times greater than the cost of these bridge loans.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to look beyond the super-heated 
rhetoric here and support me in joining this rule and this vital 
industry.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 
minutes to our hardworking former Rules Committee colleague, the 
gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank my former chairman of the Rules Committee, the 
ranking member from California, and also I want to thank the current 
chairwoman of the Rules Committee for her courtesy in granting our side 
an additional 5 minutes.
  I rise, Madam Speaker, in opposition to the same-day rule, but 
primarily in opposition to the underlying legislation, H.R. 7321, the 
Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.
  This bill gives a bailout. I don't know any other way to put it. You 
can euphemistically say it is a ``rescue package'' or whatever, but 
it's a bailout. It is a bailout for one particular industry, albeit a 
very important industry, lots of jobs.
  But in my district, the 11th of Georgia, we have a lot of textile 
manufacturing, and they desperately need help. There was language in 
the Colombian Free Trade Agreement that helped the textile industry in 
northwest Georgia. But the Democratic majority, this majority, will not 
allow that bill, that trade agreement, bilateral trade agreement to 
pass. And you know why, Madam Speaker? Because Big Labor opposes it.
  In this situation that we are dealing with now, Big Labor is the 
entity that gains the most from this, and yet they are the ones that, 
in my opinion, Madam Speaker, are wrecking the automobile industry in 
the United States. When their average cost per hour is $77 when the 
foreign manufacturers that employ the United States productive workers 
can do it for $45 an hour, there is something wrong with that.
  The solution to this problem is a structured bankruptcy just like 
Delta went through in my State of Georgia. It was painful, yes, but 
they are flying and are regaining profitability. I would trust a 
bankruptcy judge, a Federal bankruptcy judge under chapter 11, more 
than I would trust a czarina or czar doing it by the Federal 
Government.
  I think clearly that is what they ought to do, restructure under 
Federal bankruptcy chapter 11, lower those costs, renegotiate those 
contracts and deal with the creditors to take less than 100 percent of 
the debt. Then, if it doesn't work, the automobile manufacturers can 
come back to Congress and ask for some additional help. That would make 
sense. But right now, the thing for them to do is to restructure under 
chapter 11.
  By the way, Madam Speaker, when they do that, management as well as 
labor needs to take a haircut, a significant haircut, in fact maybe 
even a flattop or a buzz.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to our very good friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for giving credit to that great area 
where I live.
  I drive GM cars. Everybody in my family drives GM cars. My daughter 
has Ford cars. So we are very sympathetic. I have a lot of great 
friends who are automobile dealers, and I love them. They have been 
very kind to me over the years. We are good friends.
  But, folks, this is the wrong direction to go. We do not need to be 
bailing out the domestic auto manufacturers. And I am opposed to this 
same-day rule. There is an old saying: ``Act in haste and repent at 
leisure,'' and that is what we are going to do.
  We had another bailout here a couple of months ago. It was 
misunderstood, I think, as the only option that we had, and people said 
you got to vote, you got to vote, you got to do it. That bailout has 
turned out to be a disaster because we were pushed into it. Things

[[Page 24572]]

didn't go through regular order. We didn't have time to debate.
  We have alternatives here. As my friend from Georgia said, let the 
companies go bankrupt. Let them reorganize. This is not a bailout of 
the domestic automobile manufacturers so much as it is a bailout of the 
unions.
  And they are not the only manufacturers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. FOXX. My colleague from Michigan so eloquently stated that we won 
World War II because of the strong manufacturing base we had in this 
country. But these domestic car manufacturers are not the only base 
that we have. We have a great manufacturing base.
  And I am opposed to the Federal Government creating the czar position 
too. When in the world has the Federal Government ever done anything 
better than the private sector? Never, that I know of.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend from 
Rochester one more time if she might consider yielding maybe an 
additional 5 minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am sorry, Mr. Dreier, but I cannot.
  Mr. DREIER. Okay, thank you.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I ask if the gentleman is prepared to close.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me just ask my friend, there are no 
speakers at all on the other side of the aisle other than the words of 
wisdom that we are going to be getting from our distinguished committee 
Chair.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. There are no further speakers on our side.
  Mr. DREIER. I anxiously look forward to those words of wisdom, and, 
pending that, I am going to yield myself the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 6 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we are dealing with what is arguably one 
of the most difficult and challenging economic times in modern American 
history. We have seen the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs over 
the past several months. President-elect Obama has predicted that we 
are going to see more difficult days ahead than we have already faced, 
and the American people want us to act and they want us to do the right 
thing.
  We all know that the automobile industry is a very, very important 
sector of the U.S. economy. It is one of the most important. We know 
that the housing industry is a very important sector of the U.S. 
economy. Just today, I have introduced legislation which is designed to 
encourage people to purchase homes by developing an incentive for them 
to have equity in those homes, because we have a huge backlog of homes 
that need to be sold all across this country. The measure calls for a 
tax credit, in fact a refundable credit, for people who make a 10 to 15 
percent down payment on their home.
  Now, why is that the case that we are offering this legislation? It 
is the fact that, unfortunately, because of bad government policy, and 
I underscore that again, bad government policy, we have encouraged 
people through subprime mortgages, the CRA, through abuse of Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac as we saw in yesterday's hearing, we have encouraged 
people who could not afford it to get into homes way, way beyond their 
means, by putting nothing down, and at the same time paying subprime 
interest rates which were clearly going to be going up at a day in the 
future. So bad government policy created that, in large part because 
people didn't have equity in their homes.
  That is why, to deal with this very important housing challenge, I 
have today introduced this legislation that provides a credit for 
people who will put a down payment and have a vested interest in their 
home and keep that home for at least 3 years.

                              {time}  1515

  I'm talking about that, Madam Speaker, because we need to use 
creative measures to deal with the challenges that we face today. I 
also believe that, as we look at this challenge of the automobile 
industry, we need to do the exact same thing.
  This morning I met with a man named John Symes, who, in the next 
couple of weeks, will see his automobile dealership mark its 60th 
anniversary. They're located in Pasadena, California. Mr. Symes and I 
talked about the need for us to, again, look at creative ways in which 
we can encourage, through tax incentives, possibly a credit similar to 
the one that I just introduced today in the housing industry to deal 
with the backlog of automobiles that need to be purchased; so, rather 
than focusing on bailing out the industry, the idea of incentivizing 
our fellow Americans to get into the showrooms to have an opportunity 
to have some kind of credit, whether it's, once again, providing an 
interest deduction on the deduction for the interest on auto loans or 
the sales tax deduction, those kind of incentives, or some kind of 
credit. We're in the process of fashioning legislation that I will be 
introducing soon to deal with that. I know that there are other 
measures that have been proposed.
  We need, Madam Speaker, to have a creative way to empower our fellow 
Americans, rather than all of a sudden taxing our fellow Americans and 
going through and expanding what is already existing today, and that is 
what I will describe as ``bailout fatigue'' among our fellow Americans. 
And it's very, very understandable. And the notion of having the 
Federal Government continue to expand more and more and more is just 
plain wrong.
  I believe that we dealt with this issue, in part, with the measure 
that we passed in October. It was designed to thaw the frozen credit 
markets. And so a big part of that was for us to do everything that we 
could to unleash that. And I believe that if we had not passed that 
measure that we would be in more dire straits than we face today.
  So we've already taken a step in trying to ensure that people can get 
into those showrooms. I do believe that more needs to be done, but I 
don't believe this is it.
  And as I said in my remarks earlier, Madam Speaker, I also think that 
the indication that we had on April 10 of this year that we were going 
to have an opportunity, in a lame duck session, which is where we are 
today, to pry open the very, very important market of our strongest, 
closest ally on the South American continent, that being Colombia, 40 
million consumers there, so that we can sell Caterpillar tractors 
manufactured by U.S. workers, hardworking Americans, in the State of 
Illinois and in other States, or Whirlpool refrigerators and washing 
machines and dryers that could be sold into Colombia creating jobs in 
Ohio; and we regularly hear our colleagues from Ohio and other parts of 
the country talk about the fact that so many of our fellow Americans 
have lost jobs. This agreement would do just that.
  Colombian goods can be sold tariff-free in the United States today, 
Madam Speaker, coffee, cut flowers, other things that come in from 
Colombia tariff-free, so they've already got access to the American 
consumer. All we're saying is that when last spring we, for the first 
time ever, subverted the 1974 Trade Act, we have a chance to rectify 
that today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this martial-law rule and, 
when we get to it ultimately, since I suspect it will pass, I urge a 
``no'' vote on the next rule and the underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page 24573]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________