Alan Mulally (Ford): "I understand and we operate as you know all around the world in the markets and our plan is to profitably grow our operations in the United States."
Ford's CEO is a bit less dismissive than GM's, but more defiant about failing to make a pledge. There is nothing in this sentence that would indicate a commitment to Brown's buy American standard. Ford's profitability has to do entirely with Ford. That outcome provides no standard that can be interpreted as the intent to buy form U.S. suppliers or even to favor its own supplies operation.
Robert Nardelli (Chrysler): "73% of our sales are in the United States. 61% of our production is in the United States. 74% employees are in the United States. 78% of our materials purchased come from the United States. So we ... are the quintessential American company."
Sen. Brown: "But 100% of these dollars will come from U.S. tax payers."
Robert Nardelli: "I understand that sir. And I couldn't agree with you more. We have to make sure as we work toward gaining independence on oil, we can't become dependent on technology."
Nardelli's two part answer is the closest to a commitment to buy American. He even offers rationale for that commitment. For this, he earned the only follow up comment by Sen. Brown.
Brown: "People will be watching."
People have been watching. If they were watching the hearings, just the few moments when the CEO's answered the clear question by Senator Brown, they realized that GM and Ford offered no commitment to buy from U.S. suppliers at the same or increased levels in return for U.S. taxpayer funds.
Another thing that the people watching learned was that the United States Senators simply can't ask follow up questions after receiving clearly evasive answers. The equivocating answers by Wagoner and Mulally showed bad faith and intent to avoid a necessary promise. Brown asked the right questions. Why couldn't one other Senator have followed up?
When the GM's Wagoner talked about how competitive U.S. suppliers are then punted with 'I'll get back to you,' it would have been nice to hear this:
You didn't answer the question. Your company is about to go under. Hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs. Why can't you commit to the same or increased level of business with U.S. suppliers?"
When Ford's Mulally responded with his carefully parsed statement about Ford seeking profitability for its U.S. operations, it would have been nice to hear:
That's the second time you failed to answer the question. Why won't you commit to equal or greater business with U.S. suppliers in return for taxpayer funds?
Why won't they make the commitment? Because they don't have to. They think it's worth risking congressional support by offering up these insults masquerading as answers. If they were really serious (or smart), they would have stressed the positive impact on the secondary market and the dire consequences should the bailout be denied.
In the final analysis, the risk was worth it. Nobody on the committee seemed to notice.
A failure to bailout the automotive industry in a way that's fair to auto workers and suppliers risks the outcome presented by the U.S. airline bankruptcies or the absolute chaos of an industry collapse. But then again, anything is possible when Congress and the chief executives of major corporations come together to solve a problem, one that they created.
