[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15540-15544]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          WASHINGTON TAKEOVER

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I just finished reading an excellent 
address by the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. Secretary Duncan 
made this to the National Governors Association. He said this:

       I am continually struck by the profound wisdom underlying 
     the American political system. The genius of our system is 
     that much of our power that shapes our future was wisely 
     distributed to the States instead of being confined in 
     Washington.

  Continuing, he says:

       Our best ideas have always come from State and local 
     governments, which are the real hothouses of innovation in 
     America.

  Secretary Duncan says:

       On so many issues: energy efficiency, mass transit, public 
     safety, housing, economic development, [and then he goes on 
     to say] education, it is the States that are often leading 
     the way, sometimes with Federal help and sometimes without.

  That is indeed the American way. That is my comment. The American way 
was recognized by President Lincoln who honored the importance of 
States. He argued for a limited Federal Government. He used the limited 
Federal Government to confer opportunities through the Transcontinental 
Railway, the Land Grant Colleges, the Homestead Act, instead of a 
``Washington knows best'' command and control sort of Federal 
Government.
  It has been our tradition to rely on decentralism of government and a 
free market to build our country, and it has given us the best colleges 
and universities, and a standard of living that produces 25 percent of 
all of the money in the world for just 5 percent of the people in the 
world, the Americans who live here.
  Unfortunately, the wisdom that Secretary Duncan expressed seems to 
lie almost exclusively in the Department

[[Page 15541]]

of Education in this administration. It is an oasis of common sense, 
because at an astonishing rate, almost everything else in Washington 
seems to think that Washington knows best.
  I was visited by a European auto executive the other day who said to 
me jokingly: Well, I am glad to be in the new American automotive 
capital: Washington, DC. It is not only America's automotive 
headquarters, it is becoming America's banking center and it is 
becoming America's insurance center.
  Unfortunately, even in education, Washington, DC is now about to 
become America's student loan center for 15 million students, because 
the administration believes Washington knows best. Instead of having 
2,000 banks make 15 million loans, we are going to have the U.S. 
Department of Education make the Secretary the banker of the year.
  And now, we are discussing in the HELP Committee and in the Finance 
Committee a brazen takeover representing 16 percent of our economy 
which would say: Washington knows best about our health care system. 
Washington will become America's health care center as well.
  The health care bill we are discussing in the HELP Committee, of 
which I am a member, would expand one failed government program, 
Medicaid, and create a new one, a new government insurance program, a 
so-called public option.
  Those who support the public option--this includes our President--
feel very strongly about it, and they speak eloquently about it. They 
say things such as one Senator said yesterday at our hearing, we need 
to ``keep the insurance companies honest.'' That is why we need a 
government-run insurance program. We need some ``good old-fashioned 
competition,'' so they said, and, ``we need to keep prices in check.'' 
They say that is why we need a government-run health insurance program.
  Well, if that is the argument, perhaps we ought to start doing that 
with every sector of the economy, starting with automobiles. Why not 
buy the rest of General Motors--we already own 60 percent of it--and 
let's create a government car, and let's keep what is left of the 
American automobile industry honest by doing that. Let's have some good 
old-fashioned competition to keep prices in check.
  We could own the car company, we could regulate the car company, we 
could subsidize the car company. And we could create a car that we knew 
is exactly the right size, the right color, that got 50 miles a gallon, 
that ran on ethanol, that had a solar panel, and that had a windmill on 
top. That would be the government car.
  To be fair to the American communities across the country, because we 
would want to be, we could mandate that equal numbers of parts for the 
government car could be made in every congressional district and no one 
could buy an electric battery made in South Korea, even if it was the 
best battery in the world and would make the Chevy Volt an instant 
success.
  We could have a board of directors on our government car company of 
120 Members of the Congress or Senate. All of us, great car experts, 
right? We know how to build cars and trucks, how to design them, how to 
build them, how to sell them. And there are 120 of us who are the 
chairman or ranking member of some committee or subcommittee that has 
the authority to call the head of the car company into Washington, 
presumably driving his or her congressionally approved hybrid car, to 
come testify for 3 or 4 hours, and then drive back to Detroit having 
not a minute that day to design, build, or make a car.
  That is what we could do. And we know what the result would be. The 
result would be a car a lot like the Soviet cars we all used to laugh 
about years ago. They were clunkers. They were the butt of jokes. They 
barely worked. No one wanted to buy them. And, of course, they kept 
lowering the price, so that people would want them. Pretty soon they 
priced everybody else out of business. There was only one car, the 
government car, and people either drove the government car or they 
walked, or they took the Metro, or they found some other way, maybe a 
bicycle.
  That is what we are talking about here when we talk about a 
government-run health insurance program to keep the health insurance 
companies honest. It is the same idea as having a government-run car 
program to keep the American automobile companies honest.
  We already have one government-run health care program. We call it 
Medicaid. It is a terrible example. The Government Accountability 
Office says we literally waste 10 percent of every dollar of all of the 
dollars that we give to Medicaid. That is $32 billion a year. It is 
filled with lawsuits, bureaucracies, inefficiencies. It is a tremendous 
expense to States. It is ruining higher education because Governors and 
legislatures are putting every available dollar into Medicaid, and they 
have nothing left for the community colleges.
  The worst of it is it does not provide service. It is like giving you 
a Metro pass and there is no subway. Approximately 40 percent of the 
doctors will not serve Medicaid patients--low-income Americans--because 
of the low reimbursement rates.
  So what do we have with our great government program called Medicaid? 
Twice as many Medicaid patients go to the emergency room to get their 
care as do uninsured Americans going to the emergency room. That is 
what we have with that government program.
  Yet the Kennedy bill which we are considering in the Senate HELP 
Committee, the only bill we are considering even though there are other 
alternatives on the table, would expand that government-run program by 
150 percent, increase its costs both to the Federal Government and to 
States, all in the name of keeping insurance companies honest.
  There is a better way to give subsidies or grants to low-income 
Americans so they may buy their own health insurance.
  There is a better way with autos as well. Instead of having a 
government car for the next 4 or 5 years, with politicians meddling in 
how GM and Chrysler operate their business, let's give the stock we own 
back to the American people. Give the 60 percent of General Motors 
stock and the 8 percent of Chrysler stock to the 120 million Americans 
who paid taxes on April 15 of this year. The reason would be they paid 
for it, they should own it. Some might say: Well, let's sell the stock. 
I would favor selling the stock. I would like to get the stock out of 
Washington and end this incestuous relationship of Congressmen calling 
up the President of General Motors and saying: Do not close the 
warehouse in my district. But it might take several years, according to 
the President of GM, to sell that block of stock. So the faster way to 
do it is a stock distribution, a corporate spinoff.
  Proctor & Gamble did this with Clorox in 1969. Time Warner did it 
with Time Warner Cable in March of 2009. All of the stockholders of 
Time Warner simply received shares in Time Warner Cable. PepsiCo did it 
with its restaurant businesses--KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell. If you 
owned shares of PepsiCo, suddenly you had some of Colonel Sander's 
stock. PepsiCo shareholders received one share in the new restaurant 
company.
  Madam President, would you let me know when I have 1 minute 
remaining, please?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. These companies did all of this when the main company 
decided that the subsidiary was not consistent with the core business. 
That is what we should do with General Motors--give taxpayers its 
shares and get General Motors back in the marketplace where it belongs. 
This idea is fast, it is simple, and it creates a market for the 
shares.
  The United States is not like the Soviet Union where people are not 
used to

[[Page 15542]]

handling shares. Half of American families own shares of stock. 
Distributing government owned shares in General Motors to taxpayers 
would create a fan base for the next Chevy, like the fan base for the 
Green Bay Packers, where the people in the community own the football 
team.
  I have been giving ``Car Czar'' awards to political meddlers to put a 
spotlight on this incestuous relationship in Washington. American 
manufacturing of autos will not succeed if Washington is America's new 
automotive headquarters. Neither will American insurance succeed, 
neither will American banking succeed, neither will students be happy 
waiting outside the Department of Education for their student loans, 
and neither will health care help low-income Americans if Washington is 
the headquarters.
  Later today or tomorrow I hope to be able to offer my amendment, 
cosponsored by Senators Bennett, Kyl, and others, to give all of the 
General Motors stock and all of the Chrysler stock our federal 
government owns back to the people who paid for it. They paid for it; 
they should own it. Let's get the Washington meddlers out of the 
automobile business and auto manufacturing back on its feet.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record newspaper 
articles supporting the Auto Stock for Every Taxpayer Act I have 
introduced and plan to offer as soon as I am able.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            [From Newsweek]

                         Barney Frank, Car Guy


                   And green guy. So he pressures GM.

                          (By George F. Will)

       General Motors changed its mind. Or maybe not. It is 
     unclear that GM still has a mind of its own, so let us just 
     say that GM changed its decision. The company first announced 
     that it was going to close a parts-distribution center in 
     Norton, Mass. Then it heard from the congressman who 
     represents that community, Barney Frank.
       That Democrat chairs the Financial Services Committee, 
     which is mightily important to GM now that it is an appendage 
     of the federal government, which soon will own 60 percent of 
     it. Frank talked to GM's CEO, Fritz Henderson. So the 
     distribution center will not be closed for at least another 
     14 months.
       Is this a glimpse of what life is going to be like under 
     the political economy of state capitalism? Heaven forfend, 
     says Frank. To The Hill newspaper he said, ``I don't think 
     this will lead to a pattern,'' because, well, because the 
     distribution facility was not a dealership or an assembly 
     plant. If that strikes you as a non sequitur, this will, too: 
     Frank stressed that what he did was not improper because he 
     talked to Henderson rather than to someone in the Obama 
     administration. Which is significant because . . . never 
     mind.
       Frank's motive for intervening in GM's decision making was 
     not political but altruistic. Really. He wanted to save the 
     planet. If the Norton facility were closed, he says, GM parts 
     for New England would be trucked from Philadelphia, and that 
     would complicate the task of turning down Earth's thermostat.
       Nowadays, green reasoning is the first refuge of 
     scoundrels. Global warming has become like God: It is an 
     explanation for everything and an all-purpose excuse for the 
     political class to do whatever it wants to do. What a large 
     portion of it wants to do--what it has a metabolic urge to 
     do--is boss people around. It can maximize its opportunities 
     for doing that if it maximizes the number of people dependent 
     on government, and the number of ways in which they are 
     dependent.
       Sometimes bribing is a substitute for bossing, as with the 
     ``cash for clunkers'' idea: Give vouchers worth up to $4,500 
     to people who trade in their vehicles for more fuel-efficient 
     ones. One rationale for this is, of course, green: It would 
     put a cool compress on Mother Earth's supposedly fevered 
     brow. But the plan also is yet another bailout for the 
     bottomless money pit called Detroit. The plan would entice 
     customers into showrooms.
       But in a cri de coeur published last week in The Wall 
     Street Journal, two of the senators who dreamed this up 
     lamented that something has gone horribly wrong. Dianne 
     Feinstein, the California Democrat, and Susan Collins, the 
     Maine Republican, are surprised and scandalized that their 
     proposal for manipulating the market has been hijacked by 
     industry lobbyists, who have a different manipulation agenda.
       Feinstein and Collins tied their vouchers to purchases of 
     vehicles meeting high fuel-efficiency standards. But the bill 
     passed by the House, and a companion bill lurking in the 
     Senate, would make vouchers available for vehicles meeting 
     less exacting standards. This would help dealers move their 
     unsold inventories of SUVs, pickups and other large vehicles. 
     Feinstein and Collins denounce this as ``handouts for 
     Hummers'' and say it is evidence of ``how quickly a good idea 
     can go bad in Washington.''
       Actually, it is evidence of what a bad idea they had--
     getting the government into the business of fine-tuning 
     customers' choices. Once such market manipulations are given 
     a seal of progressive approval, it is not a jaw-dropping 
     shock that things will become messy, with factions competing 
     to get the government to do their bidding.
       Two other senators have three better ideas pertaining to 
     the government's wallow in the auto industry. A bill written 
     by Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander and Utah Republican 
     Bob Bennett would prohibit using any more TARP funds for GM 
     or Chrysler. And it would require that as long as the 
     government owns stock in the companies, the Treasury would 
     have a fiduciary duty to see that the government's investment 
     is managed with the single objective of maximizing the return 
     to taxpayers--not to advance any environmental (hi, Barney), 
     trade, energy, labor or other policy. And it would require 
     the Treasury to distribute, within a year, all its GM and 
     Chrysler stock evenly to the approximately 120 million 
     persons who paid 2008 income taxes.
       Although two years ago a share of GM's stock was worth $40, 
     last Friday it was worth $1.22, and now GM has a new 
     government--chosen chairman of its board of directors, Edward 
     Whitacre Jr., who says, ``I don't know anything about cars,'' 
     which means he is like those who appointed him. So the stock 
     distribution will not soon be a bonanza to taxpayers. But 
     unwinding the government's entanglement with GM might be.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, June 12, 2009]

                Auto Dealers at Risk Turn to Washington

                   (By Carl Hulse and Bernie Becker)

       Washington.--Auto dealers accustomed to negotiating sales 
     on their car lots clustered in the Capitol instead this week, 
     looking to their trusty, neighborhood lawmakers to do some 
     hard bargaining for them.
       With about 2,000 Chrysler and General Motors dealers losing 
     their franchises as the companies retrench, the dealers are 
     pressing Congress to reverse what they see as an unfair 
     process forcing some profitable businesses to close or stop 
     selling new autos, with no explanation from the manufacturers 
     of why they were singled out.
       ``We have never gotten one,'' said Rick Shaub, the owner of 
     Montrose Dodge in Germantown, Md. He was with fellow dealers 
     outside the office of the House majority leader, Steny H. 
     Hoyer, on Wednesday, the day after his family's three-
     generation relationship with Chrysler came to an end.
       As they lobby Congress, angry dealers are finding an 
     increasingly receptive audience in the House and Senate, 
     where lawmakers say the mass termination of franchises by the 
     bankrupt car companies is threatening tens of thousands of 
     jobs, not to mention the civic fabric of communities where 
     car dealerships are often a chief local institution.
       ``The dealers in these small towns are kind of the heart of 
     the town,'' said Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, 
     who estimated that 12 G.M. dealers and six Chrysler dealers 
     were affected in his state. ``They sponsor the Little League; 
     the big guy in town is usually the car dealer. I am worried 
     about it.''
       But the campaign on behalf of the dealers is also providing 
     a test of one of the central criticisms of the government's 
     intrusion into the operations of many companies, from banks 
     to insurers to auto giants. Even as they talk tough about the 
     mismanagement of car companies, can members of Congress 
     withstand political pressure and allow Chrysler and G.M. to 
     make tough economic decisions that might hurt their own 
     constituents?
       For instance, Representative Barney Frank, the 
     Massachusetts Democrat who heads the House Financial Services 
     Committee, came under fire for intervening with G.M. to keep 
     a parts distribution center open in his district, preserving 
     about 90 jobs for another year. Critics said Mr. Frank used 
     his sway as an overseer of federal bailout money to intervene 
     in the company's decision-making.
       Mr. Frank said that he made a common-sense argument to keep 
     the center open, and that he was only standing up for his 
     constituents. ``I will bear up under the criticism that I 
     have been doing too much for my district,'' he said.
       Other lawmakers said the growing number of calls for 
     intervention showed the dangers of large-scale government 
     involvement in the auto companies, saying the result would be 
     lawmakers trying to serve as top executives of auto 
     companies.
       ``It is incestuous for members of Congress to be saying, 
     `Close this plant; use this model; don't buy the Volt battery 
     in South Korea but make it in my district,''' said Senator 
     Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, referring to the 
     G.M. hybrid car now in development.
       Senator Alexander has instituted a ``car czar of the day'' 
     award in recognition of Congressional meddling. ``What do 
     people in Washington know about building cars?'' he said. ``I 
     don't think very much.''

[[Page 15543]]

       Even lawmakers backing the dealers expressed mixed emotions 
     about dipping into the workings of the auto companies. But 
     the dealer closings are striking a nerve in Congress. The 
     federal government has been coming to the aid of the auto 
     manufacturers, which lawmakers see as then turning around and 
     abandoning the element of the industry closest to home for 
     most of them.
       Representative Frank M. Kratovil, a Maryland Democrat who 
     has introduced a measure that would restore the franchise 
     agreements, portrayed the situation as a ``bailout for the 
     big guys, but a force-out for the little guys.''
       In the Senate, lawmakers have not gone as far as the House 
     in pushing a bill to block the move by the manufacturers. But 
     members of the Senate commerce committee this week urged 
     Chrysler to allow dealers a chance to appeal the closures and 
     for both carmakers to give preference to existing, profitable 
     operations when the automakers try to set up new franchises 
     in areas where dealers were shut off. G.M. already has an 
     appeals process for dealers scheduled for closure.
       ``We think--in the interest of fairness--that profitable 
     dealers in this situation should have a right of first 
     refusal for the new dealership when Chrysler returns to that 
     particular market,'' read a letter signed by Senator John D. 
     Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who heads the 
     committee, along with other members. A similar letter was 
     sent to G.M.
       The car companies say that they need to scale back to be 
     able to return to profitability and that cutting the number 
     of dealers is crucial to that effort.
       At a hearing last week of the commerce committee, Fritz 
     Henderson, the chief executive of G.M., said that much of the 
     growth in his company's dealer network occurred decades ago. 
     Since then, he said, ``our market share has shrunk, leaving 
     us with too many dealerships.''
       ``Everyone agrees--even the dealers themselves--that a 
     restructuring of G.M.'s dealer network must take place,'' Mr. 
     Henderson said.
       Some point to the millions of dollars in campaign 
     contributions that politically active car dealers have given 
     to Congressional candidates over the years in explaining the 
     intense interest in going to bat for the dealers. But 
     lawmakers say that they are only trying to protect local jobs 
     at companies that have persevered in difficult times and that 
     donations have nothing to do with it.
       Representative Dan Maffei, a freshman Democrat from New 
     York who helped write the measure to protect the dealers, 
     said that in his case, local car dealers strongly supported 
     the opposition. ``The vast majority are either nonpolitical 
     or support the other party pretty strongly,'' Mr. Maffei 
     said.
       Mr. Maffei said he hoped his legislation, which has already 
     attracted about 70 co-sponsors, would spur new negotiations 
     between the car companies and the dealers.
       The Obama administration has so far shown no inclination to 
     push back against the closures, noting that its efforts on 
     behalf of the manufacturers have kept most dealers in 
     business. And with Chrysler already cutting its ties with 
     dealers, undoing those decisions might be difficult. But 
     lawmakers say they intend to try.
       ``We are sure that if we do nothing, nothing will happen,'' 
     said Representative Hoyer, the House majority leader and a 
     Maryland Democrat, who is backing the effort to restore the 
     franchise contracts.
       But it may be too late to help Mr. Shaub. Workers on 
     Thursday were answering the phone at his business as Montrose 
     Automotive rather than Montrose Dodge. ``I am not sure this 
     is going to do any good,'' he said of the Congressional 
     effort.
                                  ____


                     [From Politico, June 10, 2009]

                 Members Take Auto Closings Personally

                            (By Lisa Lerer)

       On Monday, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander excoriated House 
     Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank for 
     privately urging the CEO of GM to keep a plant open in his 
     Massachusetts district, jokingly calling Frank the ``car 
     czar.''
       But on Tuesday, Alexander admitted he's not above taking 
     similar actions to protect a GM plant in his home state of 
     Tennessee.
       ``I, of course, will urge that the Spring Hill plant be a 
     contender for a GM product in the future,'' Alexander said. 
     ``I'll be doing what every congressman would be doing.''
       Alexander's two-sided approach captures the complicated web 
     of interests lawmakers weave as they call for greater 
     transparency from troubled U.S. automakers while lobbying 
     behind the scenes to protect the dealerships, distribution 
     plants and parts manufacturers in their own backyards.
       ``Members have treated a potential dealership closure just 
     like a potential plant closing,'' said David Regan, National 
     Automobile Dealers Association vice president for, 
     legislative affairs. ``There's been a significant amount of 
     congressional interest.''
       Legislation that would effectively halt plans by GM and 
     Chrysler to close dealerships is expected to move through the 
     House Financial Services Committee, chaired by the powerful 
     Frank.
       ``We in Congress have put ourselves into an incestuous 
     position,'' said Alexander. ``We shouldn't be putting 
     ourselves a position of making calls like that.''
       Yet they can't help themselves.
       On Tuesday, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and 19 other 
     members of the Senate Commerce Committee sent letters to the 
     CEOs of GM and Chrysler asking the companies to address 
     several issues related to the dealership closings by Friday. 
     The committee has questions about how rural consumers will 
     get service and about the termination of profitable 
     dealerships, among other issues. Several of the signers are 
     also aiding individual appeals from dealerships in their 
     districts.
       Good-governance watchdogs see abuse in the double-edged 
     effort.
       ``You have Barney Frank at the table making decisions that 
     affect the auto industry across the board and then he's 
     playing favorites,'' said Melanie Sloan, executive director 
     of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. ``You don't get to 
     both be at the table and demanding the auto industry make 
     concessions which includes closing dealerships, and then say, 
     `But not mine.'''
       But Democrats insist the individual lobbying doesn't 
     undermine their efforts to force the auto companies to become 
     more transparent about how they targeted dealerships for 
     closure.
       ``Mostly it's going to be based on the facts and the 
     money,'' said Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar, who said 
     she's written letters on behalf of dealers who are appealing 
     their decisions.
       ``It's normal that members are going to urge for decisions 
     to be made that benefit their constituents,'' said Sen. Carl 
     Levin (D-Mich.). ``I don't expect that there will be a lot of 
     changes.''
       The White House auto task force wants GM to close 2,600 of 
     its 6,000 dealerships by 2010. Chrysler told nearly 800 
     dealerships that they have less than a month to close. The 
     closures could affect 100,000 workers, according to the 
     National Automobile Dealers Association.
       The companies have faced a backlash from members of 
     Congress who argue that the market, not the automakers, 
     should determine which dealerships stay in business. They 
     question whether manufactures are closing profitable 
     dealership to circumvent expensive contracts or targeting 
     dealerships that had previously clashed with the companies.
       On Wednesday, the CEOs of General Motors and Chrysler will 
     testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The 
     Senate Banking Committee plans to question administration 
     officials overseeing the auto rescue efforts.
       ``The White House needs to be fully apprised of this and 
     [needs] to review this process,'' said Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-
     Maine). ``There's just no rhyme or reason to this process.''
       And Snowe added that she hopes ``to have some personal 
     calls'' with the White House about the dealership closures.
       House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Tuesday that he 
     supports legislation that would force General Motors and 
     Chrysler to honor existing contracts with dealers.
       ``The dealers are being affected in a way that will 
     adversely affect many, many communities around this country 
     without an economic benefit to the manufacturers,'' said 
     Hoyer.
       His comments followed on a Monday letter more than 120 
     lawmakers sent to President Barack Obama, urging the White 
     House to delay further action until there is more review of 
     how GM and Chrysler selected the dealerships.
       ``It is our view that the market should make these 
     decisions rather than leaving it up to the manufacturers 
     whose poor leadership contributed to their demise,'' the 
     lawmakers wrote.
       ``While we understand the desire to reduce the number of 
     unprofitable dealerships, no one has yet sufficiently 
     explained the need to close profitable dealerships.''
       Auto companies argue that the closures are necessary for 
     their survival. The manufacturers are making fewer cars and 
     can't support the same number of dealers.
       ``Ideally, automakers would love to have the sales to 
     support the current dealer network; however, with roughly 7 
     million fewer units being sold this year compared to just two 
     years ago, there are economic realties that manufacturers and 
     dealers need to face,'' said Charles Territo, spokesman for 
     the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
                                  ____


                    Breaking Down Government Motors

                           (By Brian Darling)

       During a recent speech denouncing capitalism, Venezuelan 
     strong man Hugo Chavez said, ``Obama has just nationalized 
     nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade 
     Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his 
     right.'' The conversion of General Motors to Government 
     Motors should be of grave concern to all Americans. It 
     appears that President Bush's bailout of Wall Street merely 
     set the table for an all-out assault by the Obama 
     administration on capitalism.
       Thankfully, freedom still has a voice in Congress. Sen. 
     Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) introduced legislation that would 
     require Congressional approval before the government

[[Page 15544]]

     takes ownership of a private enterprise. This bill would 
     allow Congress to stop the current shift away from free-
     market principles.
       Johanns is not the only free-marketer. Sen. Lamar Alexander 
     (R-Tenn.) has introduced legislation to require the federal 
     government to distribute its ownership shares in General 
     Motors and Chrysler to taxpayers when those companies emerge 
     from bankruptcy proceedings. Alexander argues, ``instead of 
     the Treasury owning 6o percent of shares in the new GM and 8 
     percent of Chrysler, you would own them, if you were one of 
     about 120 million individuals who paid taxes on April 15. 
     This is the fastest way to get the stock out of the hands of 
     Washington and back into the hands of the American people in 
     the marketplace where it belongs.''
       Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) also joined the fray last weekend, 
     introducing legislation that would restore private ownership 
     to companies that have been effectively nationalized. The 
     Thune proposal would make July 1, 2010 a new day of 
     independence. By that date, the government would have to sell 
     any ownership stake acquired over the past year-and-a-half. 
     There's no better way to fight the ever-expanding power of 
     the federal government's ownership in private enterprises 
     than to legislate it out of existence.
       Speaking of debt, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke 
     told the House Budget Committee earlier this month ``we 
     cannot allow ourselves to be in a situation where the debt 
     continues to rise.'' Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) responded, 
     ``Bernanke helped open up the floodgates of government 
     spending for the last year. Did he finally have an epiphany 
     this morning before the House Budget Committee or is he just 
     trying to cover-up his mistakes? America is looking at 
     mounting debt because of Chairman Bernanke's support of 
     policies that will put the American taxpayer an estimated 
     $2.8 trillion more in the red.'' The recent explosion of 
     government spending and expansion of the money supply by the 
     Fed are poor decisions by the Obama administration that will 
     further lead America down the pothole-filled road to 
     socialism.


                    The Supreme Court of Health Care

       The recently released health reform legislation drafted by 
     Sen. Ted Kennedy (D- Mass.) contains numerous provisions that 
     propose fundamental changes to our health care system. Many 
     are deeply troubling. One is the call for a Medical Advisory 
     Council that would be comprised of Washington bureaucrats 
     with the power to make significant decisions on health policy 
     for all Americans. This Council would become the Supreme 
     Court of health care, and these unelected bureaucrats would 
     make final decisions about your treatment options.
       The Kennedy bill includes an individual mandate requiring 
     all Americans to purchase a health insurance plan approved by 
     the federal government. The Medical Advisory Council would 
     decide what constitutes a ``qualified health insurance 
     plan.'' It would also determine the ``essential health care 
     benefits'' that would be included in the much-discussed and 
     debated public-run government plan that would compete against 
     private health insurance plans if it's created.
       To recap: a faceless group of Washington bureaucrats could 
     be making life-and-death decisions about private health care 
     for individuals.
       Rather than propose reforms that truly offer Americans 
     better and more affordable health care, Senate Democrats and 
     the Obama administration seem eager to expand the role of 
     government in the lives of individual Americans and their 
     families. By pushing legislation that contains things like 
     the Medical Advisory Board these politicians are endangering 
     our freedoms and seek to come between individuals and their 
     health care choices.


                   ``Save'' the Climate--Hurt Farmers

       The national energy tax snaking its way through the House 
     of Representatives has a new potential victim--farmers. The 
     cap-and-trade scheme would increase energy prices, building 
     costs and a slow the economy. My colleagues at The Heritage 
     Foundation calculate that farm income, which is the pre-tax 
     amount that farmers live on after all their expenses, would 
     drop 28% in the bill's first year. In 2035, the last year 
     analyzed, farm income drops a whopping 98%. These numbers 
     should raise a red flag for Midwesteners, and cause concern 
     among all Americans who eat.
                                  ____


             [From the Athens Banner-Herald, June 9, 2009]

           Editorial: Gimmicky Auto Bill Frames Serious Issue

       The name betrays it for the political stunt that, in part, 
     it is. But that's not to say having Georgia Republican U.S. 
     Sen. Johnny Isakson sign on to something called the Auto 
     Stock for Every Taxpayer Act is anywhere near as embarrassing 
     as having another Georgia Republican in Washington, our own 
     Congressman Paul Broun, dubbing energy legislation sponsored 
     by Democratic legislators dward Markey and Henry Waxman the 
     ``Wacky-Marxist bill.''
       The stunt in the proposed Auto Stock for Every Taxpayer 
     Act, sponsored by Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander 
     and appended to a piece of tobacco regulation legislation, is 
     its call for the U.S. Treasury to distribute an equal share 
     of stock in General Motors and Chrysler to the 120 million 
     Americans who filed tax returns on April 15.
       The distribution would be undertaken a year after the 
     companies emerge from bankruptcy, on the argument that 
     American taxpayers who are funding the federal bailouts of 
     the two companies hold, through the U.S. Treasury, 60 percent 
     and 8 percent ownership stakes, respectively, in the 
     enterprises.
       Of course, the flaw in this proposal is that it's far from 
     clear what General Motors and Chrysler will look like, and 
     what their stock will be worth, even a year after they emerge 
     from bankruptcy. For a reality check, take a look at GM 
     stock. Delisted from the New York Stock Exchange as its stock 
     hit 75 cents per share, GM was trading Tuesday afternoon 
     around $1.50 per share on the over-the-counter market.
       And, of course, the fact that the federal government now 
     has a hand in running the auto companies isn't necessarily 
     cause for optimism. As Alexander noted in a news release on 
     his proposal last week, ``there are at least 60 congressional 
     committees and subcommittees authorized to hold hearings on 
     auto companies and most of them will, probably many times. 
     You can just imagine the questions. About what the next model 
     should look like. About which plant should be closed. . . . 
     What the work rules and salaries should be?''
       So maybe the Auto Stock for Every Taxpayer Act isn't the 
     key to boosting millions of American families' college or 
     retirement funds. But that--except for the fact that it 
     allows a catchy title to be assigned to the legislation--
     isn't necessarily the point here.
       The real meat of the proposal is its call to prohibit the 
     U.S. Treasury from using any more federal Troubled Asset 
     Relief Program fund--read American taxpayer dollars--to bail 
     out GM or Chrysler. As Isakson correctly notes in his own 
     news release announcing his support for Sen. Alexander's 
     bill, ``I believe it was obvious back in December 2008 that a 
     structured bankruptcy was the correct path for GM and 
     Chrysler to restructure their debt and contracts. By giving 
     these companies taxpayer funds from TARP, the administration 
     only delayed the inevitable . . . .''
       Outside its somewhat gimmicky approach, the Auto Stock for 
     Every Taxpayer Act does serve to highlight the serious 
     philosophical issues surrounding the question of whether the 
     free market should be allowed to operate unfettered with 
     regard to major segments of the American automobile industry.
       It's a question that deserves some serious consideration in 
     Congress.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________