Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act of 2010

Mr. President, in a four-part series titled ``Justice: Delayed, Dismissed, Denied,'' published in December 2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on the failure of the Philadelphia criminal justice system to provide fair and speedy justice. ``It is a system that too often fails to punish violent criminals, fails to protect witnesses, fails to catch thousands of fugitives, fails to decide cases on their merits--fails to provide justice.'' i Given that Philadelphia has the highest violent crime rate among the 10 largest cities in the United States, this is an urgent problem which Senator Specter has worked hard to address.

In the past 5 months, Senator Specter has taken a leadership role by holding three Senate field hearings, bringing together the experts and key players in the criminal justice system to work collaboratively to find solutions to these problems. He has sought and obtained funding for the U.S. Marshals Service's Fugitive Task Force to provide assistance in locating and arresting Philadelphia's fugitives. Finally, he has introduced and supported significant legislation to better protect State witnesses, to fund State witness protection programs, and to fund State fugitive recovery efforts and the entry of State warrants into the national warrant database.

Using statistics from the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts and the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Philadelphia, among large urban counties, has the Nation's lowest felony conviction rate. For most big cities the conviction rate is 50 percent but for Philadelphia the conviction rate is only 20 percent, and that rate has been steadily declining over time. While the city's rate of conviction for murder is excellent--82 percent compared to the U.S. average of 71 percent--for other violent felonies it is abysmal: Nearly 2/3 of those charged with violent crime offenses walk free of all charges; Only 1 in 10 people charged with gun assaults is found guilty of that charge; Only 1 in 5 accused armed robbers is convicted of that charge; Only 1 in 4 accused rapists is convicted of rape; One-half arrested for possession of illegal handguns beat the gun charges; and of the 4,500 who reported being robbed at gun point, only 200, or 4 percent of individuals were convicted.

The Philadelphia Inquirer identified a number of systemic failings as contributing factors to this crisis, including increasing incidents of witness intimidation; exploding criminal caseloads incentivizing judges to dismiss cases rather than to try them (of the violent crime cases in 2006 and 2007 disposed without a conviction, 92 percent were dropped or dismissed and only 8 percent of defendants were found not guilty); the number of judges not keeping pace with the substantial increase in criminal case filings (since 1989 the criminal docket has increased by 51 percent but the number of judges has not changed; not surprisingly the number of dismissals has doubled). Additional contributing factors include trial delays caused by defense attorneys' delay tactics, which cause witnesses to stop coming to court and cases to be dismissed; dismissals because inmates and/or police officers routinely fail to timely appear in court; and a broken bail system causing Philadelphia to have 47,000 fugitives and to be tied with Newark, New Jersey as having the highest fugitive rate in the Nation.ii

Senator Specter's significant actions to address this crisis and to restore confidence in the Philadelphia criminal justice system are detailed below.

Witness intimidation and violent crime are problems that Senator Specter has worked on for decades, since he was an assistant district attorney and later district attorney in Philadelphia, and on the Judiciary Committee, where he has served since 1981 when he was first sworn in as a U.S. Senator.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Crime and Drugs Subcommittee, Senator Specter chaired a field hearing in Philadelphia on witness intimidation at the State and local level on January 8, 2010.iii This hearing brought together experts and leaders in the field to help find solutions for this pervasive and serious problem. At the hearing, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, as well as Michael Coard, a respected Philadelphia defense attorney, and Associate Professor Richard Frei, an academic, testified. Two parents, each of whom lost a child to gun violence, also testified. Barbara Clowden testified that her son Eric Hayes, then 17 years old, was killed just 2 days before he was to testify in an arson trial in Philadelphia. Because Eric's life had been threatened, in January 2006 his family entered into the city's witness relocation program. Eventually the money from the program ran out and they had to relocate to northeast Philadelphia, where Eric was murdered. No one, to date, has been convicted of Eric's murder.

Ted Canada, a Philadelphia resident and SEPTA bus driver, also testified. In 2005, his son Lamar Canada was shot 12 times and killed over an alleged gambling debt.iv One witness to the shooting, Johnta Gravitt, then 17 years old, was murdered 10 days after he testified at the preliminary hearing and identified one of the shooters. Another witness initially cooperated but after his statement to the police was publicly posted in his neighborhood identifying him as a ``snitch,'' he recanted.

The most notorious example of witness intimidation in Philadelphia involves Kaboni Savage, a drug kingpin who was federally indicted last April on racketeering and murder charges for retaliating against his former drug associate, Eugene Coleman. Coleman had agreed to testify against Savage in a Federal trial. The Federal charges allege that to retaliate for this, Savage orchestrated the firebombing of Coleman's family home on the 3200 block of North 6th Street in Philadelphia during the early morning hours of October 9, 2004. Killed in the fire were Coleman's mother, Marcella Coleman, age 54; Coleman's infant son, Damir Jenkins, 15 months old; Marcella Coleman's niece, Tameka Nash, age 34, and her daughter, Khadjah Nash, age 10; Marcella Coleman's grandson, Tahj Porchea, age 12; and a family friend, Sean Rodriguez, age 15. In a conversation secretly recorded by court-authorized wiretaps, Savage explained how witness intimidation works, ``Without the witnesses, you don't have no case?. . . . No witness, no crime.''v

The witness intimidation problem is exacerbated by internet sites, such as whosarat.com, which expose the identities of witnesses and government informants. Gang members and criminals are becoming more computer savvy. They use the internet to find out who may be a cooperating witness by accessing public court dockets. They also access other sites to locate these individuals. With this information obtained anonymously through the Internet, gang members and other criminals can easily threaten or harm witnesses, as well as their family members.vi

The ``stop snitching'' culture in Philadelphia has taken hold even among law abiding people. Years ago, popularized in movies and television, the code of silence started with organized crime and applied only to its members who used intimidation and highly visible acts of retaliation against those who broke it to maintain adherence to the code. Today that code of silence has involved into a popular and pervasive stop snitching culture.vii

It has expanded to include threats against people who have no stake in a specific case and it is now directed toward anyone providing information to authorities. It has been strengthened by the strong distrust and alienation many urban youth have toward the police. It was shown at the hearing that the more people perceive the justice system to be biased, ineffective or corrupt, the more likely it is that they will resort to community self-protection and enforcement.

As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer on December 14, 2009, ``[p]rosecutors, detectives, and even some defense attorneys say witness fear has become an unspoken factor in virtually every court case involving violent crime in Philadelphia. Reluctant or terrified witnesses routinely fail to appear in court, and when they do, they often recant their earlier testimony or statement to police.'' viii One Philadelphia assistant district attorney is quoted in the article as saying that at least one witness in every murder trial recants. At times, the local prosecutors are forced to lock up witnesses on material witness warrants to assure their appearance at trial.ix

In Philadelphia between 2006 and 2008, the District Attorney's Office filed witness intimidation charges against approximately 1,000 individuals. Their conviction rate on these charges, however, is only 28 percent.x

Criminal trials cannot proceed unless there are witnesses, and if witnesses are subject to intimidation or even worse, murdered, criminal cases cannot go forward. And unless witnesses can be assured they will be protected, the problem of witness intimidation cannot be expected to go away. Philadelphia's witness relocation program was cut from a high of $988,000 in 2006-07 to $747,000 in 2008-09. On average last year the program spent $11,000 per witness. Compare that with the Federal witness protection program that spends on average $150,000 for each witness in the Federal program. More money is needed to fund Philadelphia's witness relocation program.

It is imperative that people be protected if they step forward and provide information to law enforcement. As Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey testified at the subcommittee hearing, ``the only way we're going to deal with crime in communities is when the community steps forward, but they have to feel comfortable in doing so and know they have support.'' xi

To better protect State witnesses from intimidation, threats, and violence, and to send loud and clear the

message that serious penalties will be imposed on those who dare to obstruct justice in our country Senator Specter on February 23, 2010, introduced The State Witness Protection Act of 2010,'' S. 3017. The bill ensures that State witnesses will receive the same protections from actions of intimidation and retaliation that Federal witnesses have under Federal law. Making this a Federal offense and bringing in the FBI to investigate, as Commissioner Ramsey testified, ``would make a tremendous difference and make people think twice before they'' engaged in witness intimidation. Commission Ramsey explained it this way:

I just think the whole environment or atmosphere when you

go into a Federal court versus a local court is just somewhat

different, and [defendants] haven't been exposed to it that

often. I just think it has an impact in the feedback I've

gotten from people on both sides, whether it's another law

enforcement agency or from a person who's been in the

criminal justice system. They do not want to go into Federal

court. (Tr. at 16).xii

The bill tracks the language of the Federal witness tampering and intimidation statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1512 and 1513, and provides the same penalties for crimes against State witnesses as now are provided for crimes against Federal witnesses. For State court proceedings, the bill makes it a Federal offense to kill, physically harm, threaten to physically harm, harass, or intimidate, or offer anything of value to, a State court witness or victim if done with the intent to influence another person's testimony; to induce another to withhold testimony or records, alter or destroy evidence, evade legal process, or be absent from a State proceeding if that person has been summoned by legal process; to hinder or prevent a person from providing information to law enforcement; or to retaliate against anyone for being a witness or for providing testimony or information to law enforcement.

Federal jurisdiction is established by prosecuting only cases where there are communications in furtherance of the offense by mail, interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including computer, interstate or foreign travel in furtherance of the commission of the offense, or the use of weapons which have been shipped or transported across State lines. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit these same offenses is also illegal and subject to the same penalties. The bill also provides for specific sentencing guideline enhancements for all obstruction offenses.

To further address the growing problem of witness intimidation, Senator Specter cosponsored, and voted out of Senate Judiciary Committee on March 22, 2010, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act of 2010, H.R. 1741, a bill which authorizes $150 million in competitive grants over 5 years to State and local governments to establish witness assistance programs. Specifically, the bill requires the Attorney General to make competitive grants to State and local governments to establish and maintain short-term witness protection programs for court proceedings involving homicide, violent felonies, serious drug offenses, gangs, and/or organized crime. It also requires the Attorney General to collect data and develop best practices-- witness safety, short-term and permanent witness relocation, and financial and housing assistance--from the grantees and report this information back to Congress, States and other relevant entities. This legislation passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 412-11 in June 2009. The bill is also supported by the National Governors Association, the National Conference of Mayors, the National District Attorney Association, and the National Center for Victims of Crime. It is currently pending action on the Senate floor.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia bail system is broken.xiii For both the Court of Common Pleas and the Municipal Courts in Philadelphia, there are 48,511 cases in fugitive status and 39,110 individual fugitives. These numbers do not include probation absconders which, if added, would make the total individual fugitive number 46,839.xiv

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics report from 2004, Philadelphia is tied with Newark, NJ, as having the Nation's highest fugitive felony rate of 11 percent. The problem is compounded because there are only 51 officers in the Warrant Unit,xv which is assigned the task of rounding up fugitives. That means each officer has a 900 fugitive case load.xvi The problem is further compounded by the fact that fugitives, after they are caught, are routinely released again on bail and no bail money, once again, is collected. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the city is owed $1 billion in bail monies which cannot be collected because the Clerk of Quarter Sessions kept no computerized records.xvii

To address the failure of law enforcement to track down and capture criminal fugitives, Senator Specter convened another Senate Judiciary Subcommittee field hearing on January 19, 2010, titled, ``Exploring Federal Solutions to the State and Local Fugitive Crisis.'' xviii Seth Williams, the recently elected district attorney for the city of Philadelphia, testified at the hearing. Also testifying at the hearing were John Patrignani, the Acting U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; David Preski, the Chief of the Pre- Trial Service Division and the person in charge of the Warrant Unit; and Roy G. Weise, the Senior Adviser for the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Systems and a senior administrator in charge of the National Criminal Justice Information System, more commonly known as NCIC, the national warrant database. A representative from the Clerk of Quarter Sessions also testified. That hearing revealed that Philadelphia's fugitive problem, though very serious in scope, is not just a local problem but is in fact a significant national problem. Nationwide, there are an estimated 2.8 to 3.2 million active Federal, State, and local outstanding felony warrants. Every day large numbers of fugitives evade capture because State and local law enforcement authorities have insufficient resources to find and arrest them. And even if found, State and local law enforcement authorities often do not have the funds to pay for the extradition of the fugitive to face trial. Shockingly, many fugitives are released without prosecution. Many fugitives go on to commit additional crimes.

The nationwide database operated by the FBI's National Crime Information Center, NCIC, is missing over half of the country's 2.8 to 3.2 million felony warrants, including warrants for hundreds of thousands of violent crimes. Fugitives who have fled to another State will not be caught--even if they are stopped and questioned by the police on a routine traffic stop--because their warrants have not been entered into the NCIC database.

In early 2008, the St. Louis Post Dispatch published a series of articles--affirmed by the Department of Justice--documenting law enforcement's widespread failure to find and arrest fugitives.xix For purposes of the series, ``fugitive'' included un-arrested suspects with pending warrants that law enforcement cannot find, and those who cannot be found after violating the rules of their pre-trial detention, probation, or parole. The articles revealed that the reach of this national problem is extensive and cited federal estimates from 2 years ago that as many as an estimated 800,000 to 1.6 million outstanding State or local warrants are inaccessible to law enforcement outside the State or locality in which they were issued because the information about the warrants had not been entered into the NCIC database.

In Philadelphia, while all warrants, including bench warrants, are entered into a State database, only a few warrants are entered into the NCIC database. The hearing established a little known fact: that the Philadelphia Police Department only entered into the NCIC database a few hundred bench warrants deemed by the District Attorney's Office to concern extraditable offenses and, surprisingly, the Police Departments made these entries manually and not by automatic computer transfers.xx Thus, those who abscond from criminal proceedings in Philadelphia and flee to other States likely will not be captured because information from their warrants was not automatically entered into the NCIC database.

To make our communities safer by increasing the number of State and local fugitives arrested and prosecuted, Senator Specter, along with Senator Durbin, on March 16, 2010, introduced the Fugitive Information Networked Database Act of 2010, known as the FIND Act, S. 3120. Based on legislation

that then-Senator Joe Biden and Senator Durbin introduced in 2008, the FIND Act bolsters the effectiveness of the NCIC database by providing grants for local governments to develop and implement warrant systems that are interoperable with the NCIC database. The bill also provides funding for authorities to extradite fugitives for prosecution.

Specifically, the FIND Act improves the entry and validation of State, local and tribal warrants in the NCIC database by authorizing $10 million for grants each fiscal year 2011 through 2015. It increases for States, local and Indian tribes the resources available for extraditing fugitives between States and tribal regions by authorizing $30 million for grants each fiscal year 2011 through 2015. The bill also encourage States, local and tribes to reduce the cost of extradition by using the U.S. Marshals Service's Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation Service, JPATS, to transport fugitives back to the jurisdiction which issued the warrant and requires grant participants which seek renewal grants to provide detailed reports to ascertain whether State, local and tribal pretrial release programs are operating effectively. To make certain that funds are properly spent, the bill directs GAO to submit a statistical report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on felony warrants issued by State, local, and tribal governments and entered into the NCIC database, and on the apprehension and extradition of persons with active felony warrants.

This important legislation is designed to facilitate State and local data entry into the NCIC database through grants, increase the extradition of fugitives travelling in interstate commerce and to ascertain whether pretrial release programs are operating effectively. The fugitive problem is national in scope, involves individuals travelling in interstate commerce, and requires Federal solutions.

After the January 19, 2010, field hearing, on February 24, 2010, Senator Specter wrote to the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, USMS, to advise him ``that Philadelphia has the highest violent crime rate in the United States among the ten largest cities and the highest felony fugitive rate in the nation,'' and therefore critically needed additional funding for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's fugitive task force. On April 2, 2010, John F. Clark, the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, responded to Senator Specter's letter and said that the agency would expand the Philadelphia regional office by at least 10 marshals and staff to ``work aggressively to address the fugitive problem in Philadelphia.''

As part of Senator Specter's continued efforts to address the Philadelphia fugitive crisis, he has made several program funding requests for fiscal year 2011 to support the USMS and its partners, including: $1.207 billion for the U.S. Marshals Service, increased funding for the Edward Byrne memorial justice grants, and $792 million for the COPS program. Additionally, Senator Specter has requested report language that would direct $20 million to be used to support the establishment of a Regional Fugitive Task Force in Philadelphia.

On May 3, 2010, Senator Specter chaired the third and final Judiciary Crime Subcommittee hearing to bring leaders in the criminal justice system together to find innovative and cost effective solutions to improve the quality and efficiency of the criminal justice system in Philadelphia, as well as for similarly overburdened state criminal courts.xxi Lynne M. Abraham, former district attorney for Philadelphia, Justice Seamus McCaffery, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Everett Gillison, deputy mayor for public safety for the city of Philadelphia, Ellen Greenlee, chief defender, Philadelphia, and Professor John Goldkamp, chair of the Criminal Justice Department at Temple University, testified. The hearing emphasized the need for all the key players--the courts, the prosecutors, the defenders and the city--to work in a collaborative fashion to find solutions to these complex and systemic problems. The subcommittee and witnesses explored the following ideas:

Community based prosecutions and zone courts. Sending police officers to many different courtrooms is wasteful and inefficient. A simple solution is reorganizing the criminal courts along geographic lines so that judges are assigned to handle all cases from a particular police division. Zone courts are more efficient and lead to fewer dismissal of cases, fewer trial delays and provide more judicial economy and accountability.

Improving computer systems for both the District Attorney's Office and the Defenders Office. This would expedite discovery and permit faster and more efficient administration of justice. Offices should be able to have networked case files and operate as a paperless office. This would require extensive capital investment.

Institute new diversion programs for nonviolent and low risk offenders.

Establish more specialty treatment courts, such as mental health courts, veterans courts xxii and re-entry courts, to reduce recidivism.

Reform the bail system. Professor Goldkamp, an expert on Philadelphia's bail system, recommended improving the pre-trial release system to one which makes decisions about release and confinement based on the characteristics of the defendants, not by how much cash they can post. Risky defendants should be detained, with due-process protections, but those who do not need confinement to meet their obligations or those who do not pose that much risk, like most addicted defendants, should not be jailed. Drug addicted defendants should go to treatment; mentally ill defendants should be directed to appropriate support services.

Find effective ways to address the anti-snitch culture, including public service announcements and community outreach.

The Philadelphia Inquirer's ``Justice: Delayed, Dismissed, Denied'' series rightly identified and proved a number of the systemic failings in the Philadelphia criminal justice system which have contributed to Philadelphia having an unacceptably low conviction rate for violent crimes and an unacceptably high rate of fugitives. Many of these problems have been around for decades and over the years have only gotten worse. By using statistics from the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Philadelphia Inquirer convincingly turned a harsh light on what many in the criminal justice system have known, and what many have chosen to ignore.

Professor Goldkamp stated at the May 3, 2010, Senate field hearing, ``I think that opportunity comes in at a time of crisis and concern.'' But if the needed changes are not made, Professor Goldkamp said ``the Philadelphia court system risks being held up nationally as an example of a dysfunctional court system.'' xxiii

Senator Specter noted at the final field hearing that the Philadelphia Inquirer's series was a ``motivating factor'' in his working to obtain Federal assistance to local and overburdened courts. Now is the time for change and Senator Specter--by holding three Senate field hearings, by seeking and obtaining funding for the U.S. Marshal's fugitive task force, and finally, by introducing and supporting key legislation to better protect State witnesses, to fund State witness protection programs, and to fund State fugitive recovery efforts and the entry of State warrants into the national warrant database--is working hard to make those changes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1741 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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 consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1741.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1741 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 101, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions of the joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit the joint resolution with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of approving a continuing resolution to maintain a level and consistent funding stream for our Federal Government. It is one of our primary constitutional responsibilities as Members of Congress to keep the Federal Government running through the passage of appropriations legislation. This continuing resolution will ensure that all necessary and vital functions of government will continue uninterrupted until both Chambers of our legislature have completed their work.

If we do not act now, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government will effectively shut down this Friday, December 3. This continuing resolution is a short term, straightforward measure to keep the government running and get us through the next 2 weeks, until December 18, while bipartisan negotiations continue in the House and the Senate. It is my hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with us to move this important bill forward and to pass a clean continuing resolution contained under this rule.

This continuing resolution will fund the Federal Government at levels already approved by the House in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills and the fiscal year 2009 supplementals. This includes extending the authority for the Department of Defense to execute the Commanders Emergency Response Program, an essential tool for military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It would also continue the application period for retroactive stop loss benefits through the duration of the continuing resolution.

The Retroactive Stop Loss Pay Program provides $500 for each month served in stop loss status with an average benefit of $3,700 to the brave servicemen and -women, veterans and beneficiaries of those whose service was involuntarily extended under stop loss.

This continuing resolution would also continue to fund VA hospitals already under construction, including one in my home State of Colorado, the Denver VA Hospital, which serves 58,000 veterans living in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Millions of veterans and their families across this Nation depend on the VA for medical care and support, and we must pass this CR so we continue to build these much- needed facilities. Absent this CR, construction on these VA facilities will grind to a halt, leaving our veterans in the lurch. Our veterans took an oath to defend our country, and they deserve to come home to better care and a quality hospital that meets their needs.

This CR would also allow the Federal air marshals to maintain the existing fiscal year 2010 fourth quarter coverage levels for international and domestic flights. This funding will allow for continued training, including investigative techniques, criminal terrorist behavior recognition, firearms proficiency, aircraft specific tactics, and self-defense measures that are necessary to protect the flying public.

This funding allows the Federal air marshals to fulfill their mission of protecting air passengers and crew. Protecting our Nation and combating terrorism is a top priority for this Congress, and without the passage of this CR, those efforts with regard to our air marshals will grind to a halt, leaving the traveling public at greater risk.

This continuing resolution would also allow the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to maintain the level of Customs and Border Protection personnel in place for the final quarter and the final few weeks of fiscal year 2010. This provides proper funding to keep terrorists and their weapons out of the United States, secure and facilitate trade and travel and enforce hundreds of U.S. regulations, including immigration and drug laws.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection law enforcement professionals serve as America's front-line defense on our Nation's borders at ports of entry, field stations and check points across the United States. It's important that we maintain a consistent level of personnel at our Nation's borders. By interrupting these funds, we would be jeopardizing Customs and Border Protection's ability to do their job and protect America. This funding enables these officers to inspect our borders, process trade, combat terrorism and smuggling.

A vote against this continuing resolution is a vote to gut our border security when we need it the most.

In addition to extending the existing authority for the Department of Homeland Security to regulate chemical facilities to prevent high levels of risk, this continuing resolution would also extend the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA authority, to provide technical and financial assistance to States and localities for pre-disaster hazard mitigation activity.

As an example, in my home State of Colorado, this continuing resolution would mean keeping in place vital programs like the 2008 Colorado Springs Wildfire Mitigation Project that removes vegetation around critical facilities and communities; to the 2008 Denver Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which assists 37 communities, townships, and counties in the Denver metro area in analyzing and assessing their hazard risks; the 2007 Coal Creek Crossing affecting the town of Erie in Boulder County, Colorado, flood reduction project that helps the town of Erie modify infrastructure around the Coal Creek Crossing to eliminate future damages.

My district, Mr. Speaker, recently suffered one of the worst forest fires in the history of Colorado, which completely destroyed over 100 residences. These emergencies can strike anywhere, anytime; and if we fail to pass this continuing resolution, we will cripple the ability of the Federal Government to help with emergencies wherever they occur and whatever their nature is.

This continuing resolution would also maintain the additional $23 million in funding for the Department of the Interior's new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for increased inspections for offshore oil rigs. In light of the recent disaster we all witnessed unfold this summer in the Gulf of Mexico, these funds should be the last thing that we want to allow to expire or to cut. These funds are critical to ensure that tragedies like the Deepwater Horizon spill are not repeated and that our oil rigs are inspected.

These funds allow existing rigs to continue operating in a manner that protects the workers on the rigs in the sensitive environmental areas in which these rigs operate, as well as protect our economy from future job loss. Interrupting these funds will put offshore oil rig workers' lives in danger, the environment in danger, and our economy in danger as well.

The continuing resolution before us also maintains the current rate of the Foreign Military Financing, FMF, program, to include the $965 million that was advanced for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental. By providing assistance and aid to our allies in the Middle East, we strengthen our position and make a vital investment in global and national security.

A vote against this continuing resolution is a vote to cut off aid to our allies like Israel and the Middle East at a time when they are critical for the global fight against terrorism and to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran.

Through this continuing resolution, we also continue the rate of operations

for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund at $700 million. This section also continues the terms and conditions included in the fiscal year 2009 and 2010 supplementals which will help build and maintain the counterinsurgency capability of Pakistan under the same terms and conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I have not been a supporter of the escalation of efforts in Afghanistan or in Iraq, but I think there is a strong bipartisan consensus in this body that assisting the Government of Pakistan in counterinsurgency efforts is one of the most critical fronts to protect Americans from terrorism, from a resurgence of the Taliban and from allowing al Qaeda a foothold in that area.

There are vital programs that we must continue to fund without interruption. There may be some who question the need for a CR. Let me remind everyone that with the exception of fiscal years 1989, 1995 and 1997, at least one continuing resolution has been enacted for each fiscal year since 1955.

I encourage my colleagues to support the necessary rule for this CR as well as the underlying CR to prevent the Federal Government from shutting down, jeopardizing our allies and friends across the world, as well as the safety and security of Americans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with my colleague from California that to the extent we can grow American markets we need to work together in a bipartisan way to do that. I joined my colleague on letters to the President as colleagues on both sides of the aisle to encourage the further development of trade relationships, certainly starting with trade agreements that are very near completion with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

And also, I had the opportunity to host the honorable ambassador from Panama, Jaime Aleman, in my district of Colorado not too long ago, and I was able to introduce him to a number of Colorado businesses which stand to benefit from these.

Now, of course, as a matter of how this comes to pass, that these efforts could not be initiated by this body, we could not have an amendment to a CR if this was an open rule. We could not have an amendment to an appropriations bill which contained a trade agreement. It has to be negotiated and delivered to us by the administration.

And I know that President Obama has been committed to delivering and working on these trade agreements. In fact, in this very body, in the State of the Union address, President Obama very proudly talked about the export agenda and what it meant for American job creation. Of course, this means union jobs and it means nonunion jobs. It means job creation overall. The President remains committed to continuing to grow the market for American products and services across the world. That includes enforcing intellectual property provisions and it includes making sure that American products are available across the entire world.

Now, again, one of the issues that would be threatened if this continuing resolution is not passed is the flow of products across our border. The funding will run out for the Border Patrol and the ports of entry. Products coming into this country, for good reason, have to be inspected. Some of that has to do with whether there are illegal, illicit products, narcotics that are being smuggled, whether there are illegal people that are being smuggled, or whether products that are not allowed to be sold here or were not created in compliance with our existing trade agreements are created. The border security efforts would be gutted if this continuing resolution does not pass, leaving trade in the lurch and leaving American job creation in the lurch. So this bill has an important nexus in international trade.

The passage of this continuing resolution will facilitate the continued funding of our ports of entry, the continued funding of our border inspection services for both goods and people, which must continue. What degree of confidence would our negotiating partners of South Korea, Panama, and Colombia and many others have on our own ability to deliver on our trade agreements if the funding runs out at our ports of entry for goods and products? We must not allow that to happen.

I also certainly agree that the public, as demonstrated in the last election, they want a change in the business as usual, and I think that change has not yet fully manifested itself. Yesterday this body passed the Pickford-Cobell bill, a long-overdue bill to pass, but it had one earmark in it, a Republican earmark from the Senate, from Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, a very large earmark that apparently was the price of support of getting it out of that body.

I am happy to say that this continuing resolution before us today is a very clean CR, a very clean continuing resolution, that would allow during this negotiating process--and where we wind up with regard to these appropriation bills next year and the year after is a very important issue for political discussion, a very important issue between both parties to come to consensus around what we can do to pass both bodies. But it is not what we are debating here today. We are simply allowing the Federal Government to continue to operate its ports of entries, its border security, counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan, continued aid to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Middle East, continuing to allow these programs to operate for a 2-week period while we seek the bipartisan consensus that will emerge and is necessary to continue to be able to pass the appropriations bills that are necessary to allow government to continue funding.

So this CR is an important part of our democratic process, and at least one continuing resolution has been enacted for every fiscal year since 1955. Traditionally they have been in many of those cases clean continuing resolutions, and simply allowed at the previously agreed upon rates by these bodies the Federal Government to continue while the negotiations are pending.

I also believe it would strike panic in global financial markets if the Federal Government closes down and people don't have confidence that this Congress can even allow the Federal Government to continue its routine operations while the negotiating process for future agreements is still underway. So I encourage my colleagues to support this process through its conclusion over the next 2 weeks and support this continuing resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is standard and bipartisan practice to consider continuing resolutions under a closed rule. I would say this has been the practice on both sides of the aisle. Republicans have issued closed rules for every continuing resolution that they considered in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. Our goal with this continuing resolution is to do this in as clean a way as possible that allow these vital functions of government to continue to function: facilitation of international trade, our counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan, our border security, and our sky marshals.

In recent history, again since 1955, at least one continuing resolution has been enacted in each fiscal year except for three. And, in fact, during the entire 59-year period, from 1952 to 2010, there were only four instances when all of the regular appropriation acts were enacted on time.

Mr. Speaker, the democratic process is a time-consuming one, but it is one that is worthwhile, and it is one that ultimately will reflect the will of the American people with appropriations bills that emerge from the Senate and from the House ultimately to be signed by the President. This continuing resolution gives our democracy time to work and makes sure that the world will not lose confidence in our country. It makes sure that our vital security interests here and abroad are maintained--our aid to our allies, our security, and our ports of entry here at home. We must make sure that the safety of the American people doesn't pay the price for the time it takes for our democracy to work. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.

I would like to thank Chairman Obey for his leadership on this bill, and his staff for their hard work and their dedication.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2751) to accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of over 2,000 men and women who work in the Ohio assembly plant in my district and approximately 50,000 Ohioans whose jobs are associated with that plant. I rise for the 159,000 Ohioans with auto-related jobs and the 3 to 5 million Americans who rely on the auto industry to provide for their families.

I rise today on behalf of the environment, as we turn the corner to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve fuel economy, and to help reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

I rise today on behalf of the consumers throughout our great country who continue to struggle during this global recession. And I rise today as the proud sponsor of the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act, also known as the CARS Act.

And I want to thank President Obama for his support of this legislation. And I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for supporting this effort and thank Majority Leader Hoyer for all of the help that he has provided as we worked to deliver the benefits of this bill to the American people.

And I want to thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, Chairman Emeritus Dingell, and Representatives Israel, Inslee, Stupak and Upton for their collaboration and support on this bill. And thank you to my colleagues, Representative Candice Miller and Representative Bruce Braley, who started this process with me back in March.

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan CARS Act will shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies. It will improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will provide much-needed financial assistance to consumers to trade in less fuel-efficient vehicles for vehicles which achieve a measured increased fuel- efficient.

What the CARS Act will not do is allow someone to trade in a vehicle and receive a voucher to purchase a vehicle that is less fuel efficient.

We have ensured environmental integrity in this bill, and this bill demonstrates that we do not have to bind ourselves to the arguments of the past. We no longer have to give in to the temptation of either/or thinking. The CARS Act demonstrates that we can free ourselves from the false argument of either you are for the environment or you are for jobs. We can do both. We must do both, and that's exactly what the CARS Act does.

2009 auto sales are down nearly 42 percent below the 2005 peak. We have not seen such a decline since 1955, and this decline jeopardizes our country's largest manufacturing industry.

These are not ordinary times. These times call for bold action. Three to 5 million jobs are at risk. Auto-related jobs number in the thousands in every State in our Nation, and though it's called the CARS Act, this bill is far more than about just cars. It's about people. It's about the millions of families in this great Nation who depend on the strength of our auto and related industries for their livelihood. It's about our friends and our neighbors, and it's about our communities that depend on auto-related jobs for their tax base to support their schools, their police, fire and other city services.

By passing the CARS Act, we can shore up these jobs, get customers back into the showrooms, help our dealers move cars, and improve the environment.

Nations across the world have instituted incentive programs. In May, while our auto sales in this country fell 34 percent, sales in Germany increased 40 percent after they instituted a program.

On May 19, the Committee on Energy and Commerce passed an amendment of the CARS Act to the American Clean Energy and Security Act by a bipartisan vote of 50-4.

Under the CARS Act, consumers will trade in less fuel-efficient vehicles and receive an electronic voucher for $3,500 to $4,500 at the point of sale toward the lease or purchase of a vehicle with increased fuel efficiency. Light-duty trucks, both small and large, also qualify under the program, and work trucks, often used by small businesses, will be eligible for replacement as well.

And though our fleet modernization program is open to vehicles, regardless of where they are made, I encourage everyone who participates in this program to think about the families who depend upon cars made in the United States and ask you to purchase a fuel- efficient vehicle assembled right here at home to help shore up jobs and help our environment.

Some refer to this bill as the ``Cash for Clunkers'' bill. Others use a gentler term, ``fleet modernization.'' But by any name, by any title, the CARS Act offers significant multiple benefits.

This bill has earned broad-based support. It has the support of Ford and GM and Chrysler, the United Auto Workers, the Business Round Table, the Automotive Trade Policy Council, the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, PPG Industries, National Paint and Coatings Association, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, Specialty Equipment Market Association, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the American Iron and Steel Institute, Automotive Recyclers Association, the United Steel Workers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the American International Automobile Dealers, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL- CIO, and the United States Chamber of Commerce. These groups have provided letters of support for this bill, and Mr. Speaker, I would like to include them in the Record.

Washington, DC,

June 9, 2009.

Hon. Betty Sutton,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Sutton: Ford Motor Company strongly

supports the adoption of the Consumer Assistance to Recycle

and Save Act of 2009 (CARS Act) introduced by Rep. Betty

Sutton. This ``cash-for-clunkers'' proposal would provide an

incentive to consumers to trade-in an older, less-efficient

vehicle for a new, higher fuel-economy one.

During the recession, foreign and domestic automakers have

experienced a steep decline in auto sales not seen in over

fifty years. Last week, in fact, automakers reported that

U.S. auto sales for May 2009 were down 33 percent from the

same month a year ago. Action by Congress is urgently needed

to jumpstart vehicle sales and the automotive sector of the

U.S. economy.

The CARS Act would help consumers, support jobs and also

improve the environment. Consumers will benefit from a robust

incentive to purchase a new, more efficient vehicle and the

cost savings from buying less fuel.

While the vouchers provide direct help to consumers, it

also helps support jobs across the industry. Automakers,

autoworkers, suppliers and dealers all benefit from increased

sales and that's why the proposal has been endorsed by both

labor and business, including the UAW and the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce.

For the environment, the plan would help reduce fuel

consumption and decrease emissions by taking old vehicles off

the road and replacing them with new, cleaner ones. Plus, the

program would have the added benefit of

generating as much as S2 billion in needed sales tax revenue

for the states. Thirteen governors have written Congressional

leaders in support of rapid action on a cash-for-clunkers

program.

The CARS Act is timely, temporary, and targeted and is

urgently needed. We request that Members of Congress work to

quickly enact this important legislation by voting ``'yes''

on the CARS Act. Thank you for consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Peter Lawson,

Vice President, Government Relations.

At this time, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman, my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have.

It's my honor, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chairman Waxman.

Madam Speaker, at this time it's my honor to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, at this time it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman emeritus and a leader in this effort as well, the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman John Dingell.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to now yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House to speak on this bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman from Massachusetts, Chairman Markey.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time the gentleman from Michigan controls.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Bart Stupak.

I would just inquire of the gentleman, we have an abundance of speakers and not quite enough time, would you like to yield some time?

I thank the gentleman very much.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Tim Ryan.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Representative Peters.

Madam Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, at this point, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Representative Jay Inslee.

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have heard overwhelming support for the CARS Act on the floor today and from across the country throughout this process. I want to thank, first of all, the gentleman from Michigan for what a fantastic job he has done in moving this bill on the floor this afternoon and for all of the work that he put into making it a success. I also want to thank all of those, many of whom we have heard from today here on the floor, for all of their help and their support in getting this innovative measure to the floor and on the way to the beneficial effects for the American people. I also want to thank all of the staff who worked on this bill and bringing it together: my staff, Nicole Francis Reynolds and Christine Corcoran, as well as the staff on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and others, Representative Dingell's staff. It has been a truly collaborative process, and we have a good result.

We have heard about how this bill will improve our environment, serve as an economic stimulus, and shore up the 3 to 5 million jobs in the auto and related industries. Close to home in my district, the Akron Area Auto Dealers Association put it this way: ``Providing an incentive to stimulate sales is a critical step in the recovery of the automobile industry, and congressional passage of the CARS Act represents an opportunity to benefit both the economy and the environment.''

Local 2000 of the United Auto Workers, which assembles the Ford E- Series line of vehicles in my district in Avon Lake, has stated: ``Passage of this important legislation will not only help the consumer and public by putting cars on the road that run cleaner and maintain better fuel efficiency, but it will provide assistance by boosting car sales to the struggling auto industry in America.''

And the United Steelworkers, who represent hundreds of thousands of workers in jobs supplying the auto industry, summed it up like this: ``From the glass, to the tires, to the plastic, to the hundreds of pounds of metal that comprise every vehicle, steelworkers manufacture these products in locations all across the country. Even the paper, the catalogues, and brochures that the automakers use to market their vehicles are often the product of the work of steelworkers. But countless other citizens, union and nonunion, such as auto dealers, accountants, restaurant and shop owners, have their jobs tied to the auto industry.''

Governors from 12 States, including Governor Strickland from Ohio, the Governors of Michigan, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin all support this effort today.

It's time to act, Madam Speaker. It's time to pass the CARS Act, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend from Boulder, a hard-working member of the Rules Committee, and I want to associate myself with much of what he said.

We obviously have very important priorities that need to be addressed, whether it's dealing with environmental issues, border security, FMF, the Pakistani anti-insurgency effort, all of those things are very, very high priorities which need to be addressed; and so I think he is right on target in pointing to those.

The unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, is what is it that got us to the point where we are at this moment.

We all know that the American people are hurting. We know that unemployment benefits have expired. We know that we have looked at the election that took place on November 2 and that, in and of itself, was evidence of a high level of anger and frustration that has been shown by the American people, I mean, the largest turnover in this institution in nearly three-quarters of a century. And by virtue of that, it seems to me that we need to realize that there is a message that has been received, and that message is a clear one.

This business-as-usual pattern cannot continue. And when I say ``business as usual,'' it's a very tragic and sad commentary as to what business as usual has become. Because in this 111th Congress, we have for the first time since passage of the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act not passed a budget. We have not even dealt with the budget issue, and that has played a role in getting us to where we are at this moment.

The importance of keeping the government running is one which Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge, but we also know that we have what my friend described as constitutional responsibilities; and those constitutional responsibilities, under article 1, section 9, are for us to do everything that we can to make sure that we responsibly expend those taxpayer dollars. We basically abrogated our responsibility.

So for the first time in history, we have not passed a budget. And then, Mr. Speaker, if you look at what has happened in the last 2 years, we have for the first time ever not allowed Democrats or Republicans an opportunity to participate in a free-flowing open debate on appropriations bills, which had always been the case on virtually every appropriations bill up until this Congress.

And it's unfortunate that we have gotten to this point, because if we had had that free-flowing debate, Mr. Speaker, I'm convinced that we wouldn't be here today with this continuing resolution. Of course, I acknowledge that continuing resolutions have taken place in the past, but I wrote down the remarks that my friend just offered when he said that this continuing resolution will continue the funding levels that we have had already in existence. That's the funding level for the massive trillion-dollar so-called stimulus bill, the appropriations bills which have seen a 91 percent increase in the past 4 years in nondefense--nondefense discretionary spending. That's what is being maintained with this continuing resolution, and that is why we are very, very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about continuing to move in that direction.

Now, I believe that there are a number of things that have to be done. And the reason that I'm concerned and opposed to the continuing resolution that we have before us is that it does perpetuate this ``business as usual.'' So I mentioned the message that came from the November 2 election. We all know that. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that the American people are angry, they are hurting, and they want change.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we know how important this issue is that we are trying to address. We have the Debt Commission, which was scheduled to have a vote today. It's now been postponed until Friday. They are looking at attacking this issue. We have a month before the 112th Congress convenes. And it seems to me that at this moment, certainly following the outcome of the November 2 election, the responsible thing for us to do would be to take on these issues right here and now.

We are looking at the challenge of getting the economy growing, as I said in my 1-minute presentation. And I bring this up because I know my friend from Boulder shares the commitment I have to prying open new markets around the world so that we can create good American jobs for people.

In fact, I met yesterday with the new Ambassador, Gabriel Silva, from Colombia, who has just taken over from Carolina Barco, who did a spectacular job, as we all know, working diligently to try and pass that U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement which has been languishing for 3 years. And again, for the first time in history, having passed the Trade Act in 1974, we saw that measure thrown aside by Speaker Pelosi nearly 3 years ago after the deal had been signed and was sent up by then-President Bush.

The numbers that we got yesterday from this meeting that I'm going to be releasing in a ``Dear Colleague,'' that I know my friend will look at, interestingly enough is in the area of agricultural products. We have seen the level of exports of U.S. agricultural goods drop from 46 percent to 22 percent in the last 2 years from the U.S. to Colombia. And at the same time, Colombia is dramatically expanding its trade relationship with Mercosur, the four countries in South America: Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil. They developed a greater linkage with Western Europe. And here in the United States of America, we could create good jobs, get our economy growing and generate revenues to deal with many of these priority items that my friend mentioned in his remarks that need to be addressed. We'd have the revenues to deal with border security, foreign policy issues, and environmental issues if we could create good American jobs by opening up these markets.

And so that is why, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, as we look at the notion of a 17-day continuing resolution to keep the government going and the expiration of unemployment benefits, what we should be doing is we should have a laser-like effort focused on our need to create good American manufacturing jobs.

My California colleague was critical of me for talking about the importance of creating union jobs. He said that I couldn't have it both ways because I didn't vote for the nearly trillion-dollar stimulus bill and somehow want to create good union jobs by expanding market-opening opportunities for U.S. workers. Well, I believe that union and nonunion workers will benefit.

Workers from companies, as I mentioned in my 1-minute speech, like Caterpillar, like John Deere, like Whirlpool and others, companies in my State of California, would have a chance to have union members, union and nonunion workers, have opportunities that

don't exist today because we haven't opened up these markets.

And so, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that as we look at the challenges that are lying ahead, the notion of saying we are going to continue funding at the levels that created a 91 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending, that we're going to continue the funding levels that have created that obviously failed $787 billion, if you add interest and all, it's a trillion-dollar stimulus bill which has been decried as having failed by people all across the political spectrum, and if you look at the notion of our denying the American people a chance to have their proposals heard through their elected representatives with the kind of free-flowing debate when it comes to the notion of trying to bring about reductions in spending is just plain wrong.

That is why I'm going to urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to oppose this measure. I believe that we can do better.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from Michigan, Mrs. Miller. This is not the perfect bill, but this is it. There is no plan B. This is not the original bill that Ms. Sutton and Mrs. Miller introduced, but this is the bill that passed our committee 50-4.

One in 10 jobs in America are auto-related. In the last couple of years now, particularly through this tough recession, we have lost one in five manufacturing jobs, and certainly the Midwest has been critically hurt.

The auto sector, we've seen auto sales plummet from 17 million car sales just 2 or 3 years ago to probably what will be less than 10 million, not only this year, but next year as well. Not only the Big 3 supports this, but Toyota, Honda, the Chamber, a whole number of different groups, the UAW, the Auto Manufacturers, the National Association of Manufacturers, the auto dealers as well. You know what this bill is? It's a jobs bill.

But more important than that, it's an American jobs bill, and it's time to stop the dominos from falling the wrong way and beginning to turn the switch from ``red'' to ``green'' for auto jobs and get something in the hands of consumers that will boost their confidence.

Now, who else has done this bill? Well, 16. And guess what? The sales are up. Germany, sales have increased by 40 percent; France, sales are up March through May; the UK, Japan, China, Korea, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Malaysia, Austria, Romania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands. Even Slovakia, auto sales have increased by some 18 percent.

Madam Speaker, this is a very good bill. It's one that has bipartisan support. It's time to put American jobs first and begin to move this process forward. We know we have a majority in this House for this bill. The question is do we have two-thirds. I would like to think we do. This is it. We're not going to have another bill. It's not going back to Rules. We need to pass this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Cantor from Virginia.

Madam Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield to 2 minutes to one of the cofounders of the Manufacturing Caucus and certainly a member of the Automotive Caucus, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Madam Speaker, at this point I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the great State of Michigan, who was an original author with Ms. Sutton of the first bill, Mrs. Miller, for 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama and a member in good standing of the Auto Caucus, Mr. Rogers.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just note that I have a list of folks wanting to speak, but they're not here. That is why I am reserving the balance of my time.

I will yield the gentlelady 4 minutes of my time to control.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman another minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is time to get America moving again, and that's exactly what this bill does. The auto sector is so important to our country in virtually every single community. It doesn't have to just be a community that has an assembly line. It's the communities that build parts, whether it be a gas cap or a part for a brake, a side panel, a piece of trim, a window. Auto dealers are in virtually every community across the country, and they average about 50 employees per dealership. So this bill impacts every single community across America.

No one here today has talked about what this bill also does. We will rely less on foreign oil because the average consumer, by taking advantage of this program, will save $780 in fuel costs because they're going to trade in that old car and they're going to have a more fuel- efficient, better emission vehicle than they had before; $780 per household for those that take advantage of it. We have fraud and abuse provisions in here so that they won't be taken advantage of.

And to my good friend Mr. Flake, yes, there is a sunset. This program doesn't go on forever. There is a sunset. It's a temporary Band-Aid to fix an economic problem that needs America's attention.

Isn't it better, isn't it better to have people work and have a job and pay taxes than having them laid off and receive benefits? I think most Americans would rather have that job. They want to pay their taxes. This is a bill that helps America, and that's one of the reasons why it passed in our committee 50-4.

I would urge all of my colleagues to support this. And, sadly, because of the procedure, it does have to pass tonight by a two-thirds vote rather than a majority. I would like to think that we can exceed that two-thirds and pass it.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.