Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program.

Madam President, I wish to speak and have my time allocated to the Kyl amendment.

Madam President, I wish to speak both to the Kyl amendment and to the Gregg amendment, but

let me indicate first to my friend from New Hampshire, we are not talking about sales that would have happened anyway. If anybody looks at the numbers of what has been happening in this country, we have had capacity to build 17 million vehicles in this country, 9 million of them sold in the last year, which is why we are seeing the automobile industry in the state that it is.

The reality is, this is a program that has been working. Consumers believe it is working, small businesspeople believe it is working, people who make steel and aluminum and advertisers and everyone who is involved in the larger economic impact of the auto industry believes it is working. That is why we need to pass this bill, as the House did.

As a general statement, I say everyone knows if any amendment is adopted, this program will fall. This program will be killed if any amendment is adopted. So we should start from that premise right now and then go to the merits. The reality is, if any amendment is adopted, the program will die. Those opposing the CARS Program are offering amendments hoping at least one of them will be adopted so the program will be killed.

With regard to the amendment of my friend from New Hampshire, first, let me say this. The bill is already deficit neutral. The $2 billion involved is completely offset with funds already appropriated under the Recovery Act. In a way, Senator Gregg's amendment is actually making us pay for this twice, which does not make any sense at all.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are constantly bashing the recovery package for not delivering immediate results should be jumping for joy. There has been nothing more immediate, nothing more temporary, nothing more timely than the CARS Program.

The reality is that after only a week and a half into the program, we are back asking that the additional money we had originally asked for in the beginning be appropriated because this has worked.

I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Gregg amendment.

As to the Kyl amendment, I also urge we oppose this amendment that would set an end date for this Saturday, effectively ending, again, one of the most important and successful stimulus we have had. It would be a hit to the economy, to the environment, and to consumer confidence just as it is starting to improve.

Many of the oversight goals Senator Kyl is seeking to achieve, NTHSA already has the authority to do and they are already working on. NTHSA is already maintaining a database and is working to make it as timely and up to date as possible.

The original legislation also requires a report on the program that will cover many of the details that are in the Kyl amendment. The legislation also adds the requirement of a GAO study that will review the administration of the program. DOT has made several modifications to its online system to streamline the transactions and to speed up the processes. They have conducted field hearings, informal surveys; they have worked with dealers, and they have doubled the number of staff they have had. They have worked to refine and to deal with the immediate concerns because of how quickly the response came in.

So I would just urge that we vote no on the Kyl amendment, no on the Gregg amendment, and no on any other amendment that will kill the most effective stimulus we have passed this year.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I appreciate the concerns the Senator from Oklahoma has raised. One question I would have is, if the amendment is adopted, would he in fact support a continuation of the program? Because he certainly made a number of other arguments in opposition, which I appreciate. I know those arguments as well. But I think, given all those arguments, this really is about trying to stop the program.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It would absolutely derail what has been the most effective stimulus to date for us. It is about jobs, it is about helping small businesses.

With the concerns initially raised, some of the bureaucratic concerns initially--I have to tell you that NHTSA has been working fast and furiously in solving those problems. The National Association of Dealers strongly supports continuing this. I do not think they would if they believed it was not effective as a program.

Let me talk about the amendment specifically. It may be well intended, but there is no environmental benefit if the old vehicle is not scrapped--No. 1. The temporary CARS Program is specifically designed to maximize gas savings for consumers. In fact, so far the average savings is about $1,000, and for people in my State, that is a lot of money right now when you are pinching pennies and trying to keep things going in your household. That has been an extremely important part of this.

It is important to talk about the fact that this is a very limited program. It is very limited in scope. The funding extension will enable a replacement of less than .3 percent of the 250 million vehicles on the road. It does not compete with charities. The amendment is unnecessary because people can donate the value of the voucher to charity, if they want to. In fact, the voucher amount surpasses the value of the vehicle, so charities could actually receive more funds through a donation of the voucher, if someone wished to do that.

Also, the program, because it is temporary, does not affect long-term donations. In fact, we have met and worked with charities, discussed these issues,

because I strongly support the programs that have donations of automobiles to charities for the very reasons the Senator from Oklahoma talked about.

The reality is that there have been trends against donating cars in recent years. It is not because of the CARS Program, I have to indicate; it is because of a tax treatment change that was made under the Republican majority back in 2004 that has been a problem. If we want help the charities with automobiles, we would fix the tax treatment that was passed as part of the tax changes that were made under the Republican majority.

Also, many charities have indicated to us that they have not seen a drop in donations due to the program. What is most interesting is that we talked to some who have said they have actually seen an increase due to the heightened awareness of car recycling, particularly in owners who, after researching, find out they really do not qualify for the CARS Program but they are still looking to take advantage in some way of the deals that are out there on these great new vehicles, made in America. I hope people are going to be doing everything with their voucher to buy an American-made vehicle. The temporary program really has given people the opportunity to go out and shop and take a look at what is out there.

Pat Jessup, the president of Cars 4 Causes, has said that, ``oddly enough,'' car donations are up this month. Oddly enough, car donations are up this month. She adds:

In fact, because of the increase in donations, Cars 4

Causes has staffed up to handle the in-coming calls.

What a nice byproduct of all the awareness right now, of the possibilities going out and buying a new vehicle.

To continue quoting her:

Once the conversation about trading in or trading up or

donating a car gets going the car owner begins researching

possibilities, looking into tax deductions versus cash for

the trade-in. Also, some have found their car does not

qualify for the Cash for Clunkers Program, but while

researching they discover the tax advantages of donating a

vehicle. Then they call us.

I appreciate the concerns that have been raised, but, in fact, this program--raising awareness about the cars that are now available, the new or more fuel-efficient automobiles that are available in car dealerships all across the country, the ability to use the Cash for Clunkers Program, we are now seeing that other great programs where vehicles are donated to charities have actually gone up.

For that, among many other reasons, particularly because this amendment would kill the CARS Program, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam President, I also rise in opposition to the Vitter amendment.

First of all, this amendment, as my distinguished colleague has indicated, would limit the government's options in dealing with the financial crisis by prohibiting and restricting the extension authority. It would take away a very important option at this time that we should be retaining and, frankly, send the wrong signals to the markets when our markets are so fragile.

At a time when we are beginning to see small signs of improvement, small signs--and we will not see real signs until people have jobs and are working again--but restricting the administration's ability to stabilize the financial markets is dangerous and it is counterproductive to our economic growth.

Unfortunately, this amendment would actually undercut one of the most effective programs to help the economy we have seen. We know, as we have said before, if there are any amendments that are adopted, then this effectively kills the CARS Program.

So for a multitude of reasons, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment.

Madam President, I am happy to yield.

Madam President, it was my great pleasure to yield and it is a very important point to raise and I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee for his comments, as he has led us on so many of these issues to bring us out of an incredibly difficult economic situation for the country.

Amendment No. 2306

Madam President, I also wish to speak, briefly, on the Isakson amendment, which I happen to support. At other times, in other places, I absolutely agree we need to continue to jump-start the housing market. I think we have seen that the $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit has been a positive. I support expanding that.

When we look at what families choose to purchase, what their biggest purchases are, for most families it is their home and it is their automobile. We have actually modeled the CARS Program after the same kind of argument that caused the Congress and the President to support the stimulus, the $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit. I think we ought to seriously look at ways to expand that, and I very much appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Georgia on this issue.

But the reality is, if we were to adopt this amendment to help those who are interested in buying a home, we would hurt people who need to buy an automobile and the stimulus that has worked so well, so quickly, in the CARS Program.

So I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment simply because, at this point in time, we know what this is all about. Let's face it. We know what is happening here. Those who are opposed to the underlying bill, to the CARS Program, know if there are any amendments that are adopted, then the entire program will be ended. It will be done.

We are hearing from auto dealers all across the country, as well as consumers, as well as those who provide the materials for automobiles-- we have heard from the steel industry, we have heard from the aluminum industry, we have heard from those who benefited from advertising, we have heard from all those in the long line of people who benefit from the auto industry and manufacturing in this country--that this has worked in stimulating the economy, getting people back into showrooms.

Even if people do not qualify for the program, they get back into the showroom, and they look around at these great automobiles. I should say, a lot of them are made in Michigan. We look for those. But the reality is, there are great automobiles that are out there now, and people are taking this time to go in and to shop and buy automobiles, even if they are not part of the program.

So we are hearing from dealers all across the country talking about the success of this program. It is something for consumers, something people can see that is tangible. It is not just a debate about what might happen sometime in the future, but it is about right here, right now, how do we help consumers?

The added benefit, as we know, is that because we said you need to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, we are seeing, in fact, the fuel economy go up, savings go up. We are told right now the average vehicle that is being turned in gets a little bit above 15 miles per gallon; and people are buying vehicles that are getting a little under 25 miles per gallon. That is about $1,000 back in somebody's pocket saved on gasoline. And, boy, wouldn't we all like to have $1,000 back in our pockets right now as a result of a stimulus program that supports people's efforts to get into a more fuel-efficient vehicle? This has been a winner on every front.

We know, at this point in time--after the quick action in the House of Representatives last Friday when it became clear the initial funding was going to be running out--we have known since then, with the House gone, the opportunity to continue this program depends upon our willingness to step up and support the House bill without changes. We all know that.

I would challenge anyone offering an amendment, if their amendment is passed, does that mean we have their vote on the underlying bill? Because that would be a great concern of mine. At the moment, I think what we have are ideas that are good and ideas that are not that are being offered. But everybody knows, in the end, any amendment that is adopted, no matter how well intended--and I know there are well- intended efforts, good ideas, good ideas such as the Isakson amendment, which in another venue I have supported and will support--but right now, on this bill, if we make any changes, we are saying to every small business dealer, every dealer across the country: We don't care whether this has worked, we don't care whether this is effective, we don't want to support you, and we don't want to continue it. We are saying the same thing to consumers. We are saying the same thing to those who care desperately about the auto industry and manufacturing in this country.

So I am very hopeful we will reject all the amendments that are in front of us. On those I support, in terms of the substance, I look forward to working with colleagues in the future, to come back in other ways to put forward these ideas. There are certainly very good ideas that have been put forward, as well as ideas that I do not believe are positive.

But right now the only question in front of us is: Do you support the CARS Program? Do you support the small business dealers across this country? Do you believe this economic stimulus should be continued--an economic stimulus that has worked so well?

I have to say, in closing, I have said before, my father and my grandfather were auto dealers back in the days of Oldsmobile, which dates me. But I know what it was like growing up in a small town where this dealership was so important in terms of employment, in terms of supporting the community,

and all that was going on. I know how hard they worked.

My first job was washing cars on the car lot. I understand all that goes into a family-owned business and how much our dealers care about their community, about their business, about their employees. This is about them. This is about supporting people who support their communities, who create jobs, who have had a very, very, very tough time in this economy.

Here we have the great opportunity to support something, not based on faith, not based on some intellectual argument but based on the fact it is working. So I would urge all my colleagues to vote no on the amendments and to join us in extending, as we go into the August recess, a very important and effective stimulus for the American economy.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

Madam President, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. This will stop this incredibly successful stimulus on Saturday. It will say to the 160,000 dealers all across this country that we are not willing to support something that has brought people into their showrooms. Whether qualifying for the CARS Program or not, people are coming in and buying automobiles. We are talking about a stimulus. We are talking about jobs. We are talking about moving the economy forward.

We all know if this amendment is adopted, or if any amendment is adopted the CARS Program will be ended. For those of us who believe it makes sense for consumers, for business, for the economy, I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Madam President, I again ask for a ``no'' vote. This will kill the program. I think it is important to know, we have worked closely with charities on this particular bill. We had some very interesting comments come back. We have been told that some of the charities are actually seeing increases in their own donations due to the heightened awareness of car recycling.

To quote Pat Jessup, president of Cars 4 Causes, she has said, ``oddly enough,'' car donations are up this month. ``In fact,'' she adds, ``because of the increase in donations, Cars 4 Causes has staffed up to handle the incoming calls.''

They indicated when people look, if they do not qualify for the Cash for Clunkers Program, they are going on to discover the tax advantages of donating a vehicle. Then they are calling them.

This is a short-term stimulus. It is not affecting very important charities. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, for the sake of all of my colleagues, this would kill the CARS program for 160,000 dealers and consumers across the country.

Mr. President, I am not sure who is controlling time, but I wish to speak on the bill and on the amendment at the same time.

Is there a time limit on the bill?

I am asking a parliamentary inquiry: Is there a time limit on the bill?

I thank the Presiding Officer. I wish to speak on the bill. I would ask, who is controlling time in opposition to the amendment? I wish to speak on the bill.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, how much time is remaining in opposition to the Kyl amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use that time.

Madam President, we will soon vote on whether to extend the Cash for Clunkers Program. Rarely has this body passed legislation that has so clearly and quickly met our goals than when it approved the first installment of money for this program earlier this summer. The program offers rebates of $3,500 to $4,500 to consumers who trade in old inefficient vehicles for new cars and trucks with higher mileage. Thousands of consumers who hope to take advantage now wonder whether they will have the opportunity.

It is important to understand the context in which we originally approved this program. Amid the most severe downturn since the Great Depression, auto sales everywhere plummeted--in the United States and around the globe, foreign manufacturers and U.S.-based companies alike. In the U.S. market, month after month automakers have reported sales that have fallen 40 percent or more from a year ago. This unprecedented decline has harmed not only the hard-working autoworkers in my home State and other States, but auto suppliers, auto dealers, and small businesses in every community in this Nation. Because the auto industry represents such a large share of this Nation's overall economic activity, as long as this sales decline continues, it will weigh down our economy, frustrating attempts to lift us out of recession.

In establishing this program, we did not establish a course. We followed a

path that had already been laid out by other nations. In Germany, France, Japan, and other nations, governments recognized the danger to their own auto industries in this time of economic crisis and they acted. Germany's Government established its own version of cash for clunkers, and in June car sales were up 40 percent over the same period a year ago. Other nations saw similar impressive increases.

After just a few days, our efforts have borne impressive results. This week Ford reported its sales increased in July from a year ago, the first year-over-year increase reported this year by any automaker. Other carmakers, foreign and domestic, saw smaller declines than in previous months. The impact has been so striking that one private economist has raised his estimate for economic growth in the third quarter of this year by more than 50 percent based solely on the success of cash for clunkers.

This program accomplished what it was intended to accomplish. In just a few days, a quarter of a million Americans traded in their old car for a new model using the credits available from this program. That is a quarter of a million American families who have more fuel-efficient transportation, a quarter of a million transactions that will pump new money into local economies, and an incalculable boost to this Nation's struggling auto industry.

The program has made significant improvements in the fuel efficiency of our Nation's vehicle fleet. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, consumers using this program are buying new vehicles with an average 63 percent improvement in fuel economy over their trade-ins. More than four out of every five vehicles traded in are trucks; nearly three out of five new vehicles are cars. The average mileage improvement of 9.6 miles per gallon is more than double the program's minimum and far greater than expected.

In short, cash for clunkers has exceeded earlier projections in its ability to get older cars off the road and their damaging emissions out of our skies. Seldom have we had an opportunity to do more for our environment than we do today. Reinforcing and extending this program will get replaced hundreds of thousands more of these environmental clunkers with highly efficient new vehicles.

Some Members have proposed changes to the program by amendments. Some amendments are pending, or will be introduced, that are not related to this program. These may be well intended amendments, but it is vitally important to keep in mind the need for immediate action. The House of Representatives has sent us a bill that will keep the program running. Any amendments--any amendments--that the Senate approves will send the legislation back to the House of Representatives where action will be delayed until the House reconvenes in September. So any amendment that is adopted here is the death knell for this program. It would have to end immediately if an amendment is adopted because of the uncertainty over whether funds remain and to what extent. This program is designed to be a one-time stimulus, not a stop-and-start deal, which would make it more complex and confusing.

This situation is not new. We had a similar situation just a week or so ago. When the Senate passed a bill to restore funding to the highway trust fund, an amendment pending to that bill would have prevented the Federal Government from cutting $8.7 billion in transportation funding from several States, including my home State of Michigan. Normally, it would have been a simple decision to vote for that amendment to avoid those cuts. Michigan is in desperate need, and that amendment would seemingly protect hundreds of millions of dollars for my State. Yet I voted against the amendment. I did so because of the time-sensitive nature of the underlying bill. And many others in this body voted against an amendment for that same reason.

The highway trust fund was on the verge of running out of money, and the bill that we were voting on restored funding to keep it solvent through September. With the House of Representatives about to adjourn a week or so ago, any Senate amendment to that bill would have required that it be sent back to the House of Representatives, likely killing the bill. I, and many others here, decided not to risk letting the highway trust fund run out of funds. So what did we do? We voted for the bill, but we voted against an amendment, even though that amendment would have helped our States. What we did instead is we pledged to seek passage of that amendment at a later date to a different legislative vehicle. I opposed every amendment to that bill, as did a majority of our colleagues.

That is the situation we are in now. If we want this program to continue, we have but one choice. We have to vote for it, but we also must vote against all of the amendments that are pending to it, even though those amendments may be attractive standing on their own and in ordinary circumstances. It is going to be difficult for some to vote against these amendments. I understand that. But the issue is going to be, do you want the Cash for Clunkers Program to continue? If any amendment passes, it is the end of that program.

I yield the floor.

First, let my thank my friend from Oklahoma for raising some of these questions which are entitled to be debated. We are not alone in having a Cash for Clunkers Program. Other countries, including Germany, have had these programs. So we are not designing something from scratch. All auto-producing countries that I know of in the world are fighting to have an

auto industry come out at the end of this recession.

Unless we take action in a number of ways, that is not going to happen. So the Cash for Clunkers Program is based on a similar type of program in other countries, including Germany, where it has been very successful.

It is not my intent--to answer the other part of his question--it is surely not my intent that this program continue beyond this extension. No one can give an assurance as to what is going to happen in the future with this body or other Members of this body or, indeed, with myself. But it is not my intent that this be a continued program beyond this extension. The reason it was so essential that we have this extension is it was such a successful program. It sold out so quickly, we think our success actually overwhelmed us.

I don't believe, as the Senator from Oklahoma does, that people were buying forward. I think maybe the opposite happened. By the way, I think people may have been waiting until there was this kind of incentive because people are in desperate economic shape. Perhaps some of the people who knew there was going to be such a program may have held back in buying a vehicle.

But also the other prong of this program, besides the economic boost it gives to the economy overall, is the environmental part. That is the part which the Senator's amendment does not address. It is intended to get clunkers off the road, not just to get an economic stimulus into the auto area for sales of vehicles that benefit not just producers but car dealers and suppliers, but there is also a huge environmental benefit which has not only proven itself, but done much better than anybody could have expected.

That is ignored by the Senator's amendment, because keeping those cars on the road, as the Senator would do, denies the environmental benefit of the Cash for Clunkers Program. That is another reason I would oppose the Senator's amendment.

I do not know the number.

In response to the Senator, I think that same point is true with the purchase of any new car.

But the faster we get the more fuel-efficient cars, the better environmental impact we are going to have, even though there is that time period, obviously, when there is a carbon footprint that results from the production of the new car.

But you get to that 2\1/2\ years faster then if you buy that new car now than if you buy it a year from now or 2 years from now.

It may. We do not know that.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, how much time is left in opposition to the Isakson amendment?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--I am not sure who controls the time in opposition--that I be allowed to use 3 minutes of that time.

Madam President, the Isakson amendment is an example of an amendment which is not only well intended but an amendment that I happen to favor and have favored on a number of occasions on this floor.

One of the problems, though, is it is very clear we have a choice before us. We are either going to have an extension of the Cash for Clunkers Program, with passage of the House bill without any changes in it, or it is going to die. Passage of the Isakson amendment is not only well intended, but as good an amendment as it is, it will defeat both. We cannot get the Isakson amendment passed into law by adopting it here. It would be added to a bill which is going to go nowhere except to a House which has been adjourned. And we cannot keep this Cash for Clunkers Program going unless we adopt the House bill today.

If we leave without adopting the House bill or amending the House bill, it is the end of the most successful program we have seen in the stimulus package. That is the choice. So adopting the Isakson amendment does not get us where Senator Isakson wants us to get, and it destroys the Cash for Clunkers Program extension.

It has been a highly successful program, probably the most successful of any of the stimulus packages, at least to date. We are put in a position--a number of us--of voting against these amendments, amendments, for instance, as well intended as is the Harkin amendment. Voting against an amendment such as that is difficult, we know that, but we did it a week ago. We had to do it when the highway trust fund came up. We had to vote against an amendment which most of us, I believe, favored, which would have produced money for our States, in order to have a bill passed without any amendment so that we could get it done because the House was about to adjourn. So we were put in that position. It is not unusual around here that we are put in this position. It is a fact of life around here. It is not hard to explain back home why we had to do this.

So if we favor the cash for clunkers extension, we have to vote against every amendment. There cannot be a change. There cannot be a period, a comma, a word, a paragraph changed in the House bill. If there is, it is the death knell for this very successful program.

So I hope we will vote against all amendments. Some of them are very difficult to vote against. Some of the amendments we may have voted for before, including the Isakson amendment. Some like the amendment of Senator Harkin, which is such a well-intended amendment. It has other complications to it, by the way, which would require it being modified, I believe, if it were going to have the effect that is intended, which would require regulations to be adopted, and that would take so long in any event that holding up the cash for clunkers bill for that to happen would also be the death knell for this bill that is so valuable.

So I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, and I will object for reasons I have discussed with Senator Harkin, any amendment to this bill will end the bill. It is a death knell for the bill. The modification also would have another delay even if it didn't kill the bill, even if it were passed and the House were able to adopt it. It requires regulations to be adopted which would take time. It would be a stopping and starting of the program. It would create a great deal of confusion.

This is an extremely well-intended amendment. I give Senator Harkin a lot of credit for what he is aiming to do, but it cannot achieve its purpose the way it is drafted. The way it would be modified would take a significant period of time to be modified. It would result in a stop- and-start situation of the Cash for Clunkers Program. So, reluctantly, I object.

Is there any time remaining in opposition?

Madam President, this amendment would have an across-the- board cut to the appropriations bill of $2 billion, including appropriations bills that have already passed. It is a recipe for chaos in the appropriations process. The pay-for is in the bill for this $2 billion package.

In addition to all of that, any amendment to this bill will kill the program. So if you want to kill the program as well as create havoc in the appropriations process, then you will vote for the Gregg amendment; otherwise, you will vote no.

Mr. President, this is another well-intended amendment. It is an amendment, indeed, that many of us have voted for in a slightly different form in a different place. However, it would represent the death knell for this program. So if you believe the Cash for Clunkers Program is a successful program and should be extended, this amendment needs to be defeated and raised at a different point.

We will not get the Isakson amendment into law by adopting it. All we will do is stop the Cash for Clunkers Program from continuing. That seems to me to be the choice, which is a fundamental one. I hope we defeat the Isakson amendment.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that Coburn amendment No. 2304 be called up.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Madam President, it is interesting to note what we just heard from the Senator from Michigan about how we can't fix this program--admitting that there are several things wrong with it--because the House is out of town and we have to pass it. So we are going to do the wrong thing for the right reason.

I have not heard from a dealer in my State that is not for this program. There is no question it is stimulatory. There is no question, however, that the stimulation is one based on time of sales, not on true total stimulation to our economy. What we are doing is stimulating future sales to be bought at this time. But, more importantly, we have two untoward disadvantages that this program is causing which is actually hurting the poorest and the weakest and those of color in this country.

When we wrote this amendment, we went to the Finance Committee. We were told it was not going to score.

Then when we got to the Joint Economic Committee, they scored this amendment as costing $90 million, but what they did not take into consideration is that if these cars were actually given to charities or to people who did not have a car, it scored exactly the same. In essence, there is no net score with the bill.

The fact is, with this program--because we are destroying half a billion dollars worth of real assets so far in this program and we are going to destroy $1.2 to $1.3 billion worth of real assets, real cars that charities could really use to give to real people who do not have transportation--we are taking that away. In our tough economic times right now, charities' income is down about 30 percent across the board while the demands on the charitable organizations are up. We all recognize that charities use the contributions of automobiles to then turn around to sell and fund a lot of charities.

What this amendment does is allow the vehicles that are traded in to be donated to poor families or to charities. Why destroy a perfectly good car that somebody in a rural area who cannot get access to health care now because they don't have transportation--why destroy that mechanism of opportunity?

I understand there probably will not be the votes for this amendment. But to say we are going to take a perfectly good automobile that somebody less fortunate could utilize for years for transportation purposes, that will elevate them economically, and instead we are going to destroy it, we are going to destroy the opportunity for somebody less fortunate to have that automobile. This program is working for two groups of people: it is working for the auto industry and their dealers, and it is working for anybody who qualifies and uses the Cash for Clunkers Program. But it is not working for everybody else. This is a small minority of Americans who are going to benefit for a specific industry.

I heard the Senator from Arizona raise the question: Why not golf clubs? Why not dishwashers? Why not washing machines? Why not boats? Why not RVs? Why not other industries that also were on their backs, not having the same benefit?

I also would note that several organizations, a couple from which we received endorsements--the Military Order of the Purple Heart and Lutheran Charities throughout America endorse it.

I thought I would raise one other point; that is, this amendment is significantly environmentally friendly. A recent ABC News story on the clunkers quoted the following:

Believe it or not, even some environmentalists are against

the new law. They point out it will end the lives of

perfectly serviceable vehicles with years of life left. One

way to be green is to get a more carbon friendly car. Another

way to be green is to recycle or buy a used car. It takes 113

billion Btus to build a Toyota Prius. You have to drive that

car 46,000 miles before you are even on the carbon footprint.

If you take the same car and give that car to somebody in need, you enhance their economic condition and you do not create another 113 billion Btus of energy.

Hybrids get great mileage, we talked about that, but in terms of net- net, in terms of being green--we hear that all the time. If we want to do what is most efficient from an environmentally safe standpoint, this amendment does it. You still have the Cash for Clunkers Program, but what you do is turn around and use the cars by giving them to charitable organizations or families who need them. If we were to do that, especially if we are going to increase this program $2 billion additionally, you are going to save $1 billion worth of net assets that we can transfer to those less fortunate in this country. For that, the tax consequences will be $90 million, which is exactly the same tax consequences we would have had on these cars had we not had a cash for clunkers program.

It is crazy, in this country, to intentionally destroy perfectly good automobiles. It is nuts. It is not rational. Yet we have a program and we are already doing it. In Oklahoma we had a car that was traded in that had 10,000 miles on it. They destroyed the engine on the car under this program. Granted, it had poor gas mileage, but that was transportation to somebody who was poor, transportation to somebody who did not have transportation.

We have been debating health care around here for 6 months. The biggest limitation on access to health care in rural and poor communities is transportation, and we are going to take away an opportunity to give many of those people transportation. We are going to take it away. The schizophrenia of Washington continues to amaze me, and the lack of common sense that is associated with what we do.

I will make one final note. The reason this bill has problems, the reason the Transportation Department is having trouble with it is it never went through a committee, never had multiple hearings, had not had an oversight on what we were going to do, and it was done in such a short period of time that we did not even allow the Transportation Department an effective amount of time to set it up so it would be effective and not wasteful.

If you hear any complaints from the dealers, it is they don't know where they stand on whether they are going to get paid. They have no clue right now because even though they filed paperwork, getting that money to them--what we are seeing is a lot of problems with unhappy customers right now at the dealers because the Transportation Department cannot be efficient in administering this program.

I conclude by noting that if this is the standard under which we are going to reenergize our economy, then we ought to apply the same standard to every other industry. If we do, we will not be bankrupt in 11 years, we are going to be bankrupt next year.

I want our auto companies to succeed. There is no question there are stimulatory benefits to what we are doing, but it is at a great cost. As the Senator from New Hampshire noted, the net-net cost is $45,000 per net car that would not have been traded in. It is foolhardy.

I hope Members of the body will consider this amendment. I know they have been instructed to not consider it.

I will reserve the remainder of my time.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record four news articles published in the last week about how cash for clunkers has negatively impacted charities. This comes from the North- West Cable News, Denver Post, Fox News, and nbc4.com.

Madam President, I could be a whole lot more comfortable with this bill if you told me there was not another one coming in a month. But the fact is, what we are doing is buying forward sales. Every economist says that. Eighty percent of the sales that come in under cash for clunkers--we are just moving up sales that were going to be there anyway. There is nothing wrong with that as long as we say there comes a point in time we are not going to do that.

I wonder if my distinguished colleague from Michigan would commit to the body that we are not going to see another one of these bills in 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, or 5 months, we are going to subsidize the purchase of automobiles by stealing from our children in this country-- regardless of the economic benefit for one particular industry. Is there an answer to that question? The fact that there is not an answer to the question means it is not going to stop with this one. As soon as this next program stops, and as soon as we run through the money, the sales are going to go right back down.

Then our option is going to be: Well, we have to do another one and another one because we are buying forward sales.

What we need is the health of the economy. I do not deny we need to inject the proper amount of fiscal stimulus, true fiscal stimulus, not a government transfer payment, which is 60 percent of the stimulus bill that was passed, but it is an interesting question: When does it stop?

If we are going to do it for automobiles, and let's say automobiles get healthy but the appliance industry does not, are we going to do it for the appliance industry? How much more can we afford to borrow from our kids? Those are legitimate questions that need to be addressed.

I understand the depth and breadth of the difficulties the States in the upper Midwest are feeling from this recession and especially the impact on the automobile companies. I want to be cooperative. I want to see them come out.

But it would certainly give us much less indigestion if we knew there was truly going to be an end and not another of these Cash for Clunkers Programs when the sales dribble right back down because all we did was stimulate forward sales into this sales period.

With that, I reserve the reminder of my time.

Is it not true that the average plants were down for 10 weeks?

Maybe 10 weeks. I know Chrysler was down longer than that. The fact is, when I drive by the auto dealers, and when I check the statistics with NHTSA, inventories are low.

So we are going to put $2 billion back out, when inventories are at half the level on the car lots of what they normally are. So if, in fact, you pass this, you might ought to spread it out over a period of time so the factories can get the cars to the dealers because that is a significant worrisome part on a lot of my dealers--that if you bring it back now, and you bring it back, we are not going to have the cars to sell them.

I did make a note before, I say to the chairman. He is my chairman. I get along with him great. I have great admiration for him. I am glad Oklahoma does not have any car manufacturing plants right now. I can tell you that. But I did make a point that it takes 153 billion BTUs to make a Toyota Prius. You have to drive that car, on average, 2 years before you are ever at break-even.

So if you take a used car--and this program does not apply to used cars, right? It applies only to new cars. If you take a used car and compare it to a car of similar size, you are at least 2\1/2\ years before you ever get the first benefit, in terms of green, 2\1/2\ years.

So we may see a difference in those, but in terms of BTUs consumed, it is 2\1/2\ years before you see the first change in terms of carbon footprint under this program. Ultimately, I would admit to you there is a carbon benefit to it.

Yes, it is true.

Well, 2 years from now, it is going to have 4 or 5 miles better mileage.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, this is a simple amendment. Rather than throw great cars away, give them to poor people. One of the biggest problems we have with rural health care and health care associated with our citizens of color in this country is the fact that they do not have transportation to get their health care.

Under this bill, already we will destroy $500 million worth of good automobiles. As we pass this bill we are going to destroy another $1 billion worth of automobiles.

It would seem to me, since the charitable organizations are so good at utilizing these cars and we have such a need, especially with the economic downturn we have, that we ought not be throwing them away and ruining them. What we ought to be doing is giving them to those who have greater need than those who are turning them back.

Madam President, I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act with respect to my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: What is the order of business right now?

Thirty-minute time limit on?

Mr. President, I have an amendment. I believe it is at the desk. If not, I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the Car Allowance Rebate Program, or the cash for clunkers as everyone knows it, has been very popular with the American people, there is no doubt about it, the way it has been used. It has been a shot in the arm for the auto industry and our dealers at a very critical time. But I believe the program should be strengthened, and I think we should seize this supplemental time as an opportunity to do just that.

When this program was first authorized last year and we put this into effect, at that time I made the observation, which I will repeat here today, that, why would we want to give $4,500 to the President of the United States, who makes $400,000 a year, so he can buy a new car? Why would we want to give a Member of the Senate, who makes $172,000 a year, $4,500 to buy a new car? Quite frankly, we can afford to buy a new car.

But how about the rest of the American people out there, those who are making $30,000 a year, just above the minimum wage or $35,000 a year or $40,000 a year? How about them? What do they get out of this? Well, they can get $4,500 to buy a new car too. Someone who is making $35,000 a year probably does not have health insurance either. They probably have some old clunker made back in the 1990s or 1980s they are still driving that they are paying a lot for because it is a gas guzzler and they are paying a lot to get it repaired because they cannot afford to buy a new car. If you give them $4,500, many still cannot buy a new car.

So I argued at that time, when we did this, that we ought to put an income limit on it. That way, if you put an income limit on it, then the amount of money we are appropriating--that is what we are doing, by the way, spending taxpayers' money; we are putting this money out there--then that amount of money goes to a smaller subset of people, those who are low and moderate income. If you do that, then you can afford to give them a little bit more money. So someone making $35,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year might be able to get not $4,500 but maybe $7,500, maybe $8,000. Someone in that income category, then, could go out and buy a new car because they could get a loan, say, if they are buying a $16,000 or $17,000 car, and that is what new cars are selling for, at least some of the more modest automobiles. Some of the more modest automobiles cost around $14,000, $16,000, $17,000. So if they got more money, that means they could get a loan for 50 percent of the price. They probably could not get a loan for 75 percent or 80 percent of the price because they simply do not have that much credit. But they could get a loan for maybe half of the price of a car because, obviously, when they drove it away, the value of the car would still be more than that.

So I argued at the time that is what we should do with this money, and that is what I do again with this amendment. This amendment just basically says it limits the income, restricting the participation to individuals with an adjusted gross income of less than $50,000 and families with an adjusted

gross income of less than $75,000. So if you have an adjusted gross income as a single person of less than $50,000, you can participate; if you are a family, with less than $75,000 in adjusted gross income, you can participate.

Again, what I don't have in this amendment is increasing the amount of money.

So that is the thrust of this amendment. I know the program has been very successful. The first $1 billion was rapidly exhausted. I assume the second $2 billion we are going to be voting on would do the same. To my way of thinking, let's get a couple of bangs for the buck. Let's not only stimulate our economy by getting a lot of those cars off the lot and giving a shot in the arm to the auto industry, but let's help some people who really need some help: lower income, moderate-income individuals, and families who, even if you give them $4,500, can't afford to buy that new car. So, to me, that is what we ought to do. We ought to ensure that we get the maximum economic stimulus for every dollar we spend.

If we are going to give a lot of money to people who make $150,000 or $200,000 a year, or whatever--there is no income limit on the bill now--I am not certain that is a lot of economic stimulus. I might like it. I could probably take my car--I forget what year my car is, early 2000--I could take it in and get a new car, and I would get $4,500. But is that fair? Is that fair to someone of my status who makes--let's face it, I make $172,000 a year. Is it fair that I should get $4,500 to go out and buy a new car? I just don't think that is fair. I don't think it is right. But I think it would be right for someone making less than $50,000 a year because they are the ones who need the help. They need some economic stimulus also.

The higher the income of the person, the more likely they are to buy a new car without the rebate and in many cases would do that. Maybe it would not happen this month. But it may very well happen in the months to come.

By only providing money to those who are less likely to buy a car without the government benefit, we have a more efficient use of government dollars.

For the modest income family with an old gas guzzler, they are paying more for gas, they are paying more for repairs because they can afford to repair the car but they can't afford to get a new car, so they are stuck. They really need the help. I always thought cash for clunkers was a great idea--I still do, if it was targeted--if it was targeted and you gave lower and moderate-income people enough money to go out and do this.

So I think the $1 billion before, and now the $2 billion--so $3 billion--I think could have been much better spent by targeting it to low-income people and giving them the economic stimulus they need, so they will be saving money because they will be spending less on gas and they will be saving money because they are spending less on car repairs.

People of modest means are the most likely to have a vehicle that is really old, that is really a gas guzzler. Again, in the absence of an incentive, they are going to stick with their old vehicle because they simply can't afford a new car. A $4,500 rebate obviously provides a powerful incentive. We have seen that. It works.

I don't have any demographics. I don't have any data on who purchased these cars in regard to their income levels because there is no income guidelines on this, we don't really know who walked into the showrooms and bought these cars. We do know about half the cars were foreign cars. We do know that. Almost half were U.S. big three company cars. We do know that. But we just don't know what the incomes were, the economic status of the individuals or families who came in and purchased this new car.

I will say that I have on a few occasions talked to individuals I know who are of modest income means to ask them if they were taking advantage of this, and in just a few instances that I have been able to tap into this--by no means is this any kind of a poll that would be accurate, but in just the few cases where I have asked, people have said: Well, you know, $4,500 is nice, but I don't have the rest of it. Quite frankly, my credit is not very good because I am up to here with credit cards, and I am not certain I can get the money together to buy that car. So, again, that is just a couple of instances. I wouldn't say that is generally true, but it gives me an indication there are a lot of people out there who would like to have a new car, who would like to have the wherewithal to do it but even with $4,500 would not be able to.

So, again, that is what my amendment is. It is very simple. It just says right now that $50,000 per person, $75,000 per family. So think about it.

Right now, an executive with a $1 million salary and a 10-year-old gas-guzzling second car--perhaps a Cadillac; that is their second car or their third car--they can walk right into the showroom and purchase a brand new Cadillac that gets an additional 8 miles per gallon. That executive making a million-dollar salary, we will give them a $4,500 gift from the Federal Government.

Is this what we want to do? I don't think so. I just don't think it is a wise use of the limited funding we have. It probably will stimulate the economy; sure. I have no doubt about that. But is it stimulating the economy for lower income people whom I think we also ought to be stimulating in terms of their economic situation too?

So, again, that is the essence of the amendment. I think the program works. It is good, but it should be appropriately targeted to Americans of modest incomes and modest means. They tend to drive older vehicles. They need those cars to get to work, to take their kids to afterschool activities, to get to the doctors, and if they live in rural areas such as Iowa and places like that, they depend on that car for their life. So I think it makes good sense to offer a car purchase rebate. I am not opposed to the program. I think it works. But I just think it ought to be better targeted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention that there is a mistake in drafting part of this amendment. Quite frankly, it does read that a voucher may only be issued under the program to an individual ``who filed a return of Federal income tax for taxable year beginning in 2008.''

There are some low-income people who don't file income tax returns, so there is a little bit of a problem in the drafting. I still remain committed to somehow working this out. It now looks as though even some people who make just over the minimum wage would not be allowed to go in, and those are the people I am trying to get to more than anybody else, those who are making a very low income but probably don't file an income tax return because they are low income.

I believe there are ways of getting over this. But the way the amendment is drafted, it can only go to an individual who filed a Federal income tax

return. That raises some troubling questions. I am also told that, under the agreement we have now, I cannot offer another amendment. In other words, amendments are now limited. I have a problem, because it is not what I intended to do. It is a drafting error. I apologize for that. I will continue to try to work on it and see if I can do something at some point. I remain committed to having an income cap on this program.

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside my amendment and that we move on to other amendments. We will bring this amendment up later. I ask unanimous consent that the time we have be reserved and that we come back to this amendment after the others have been disposed of.

Madam President, I have an amendment to my amendment that I send to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to make a modification to my amendment.

Madam President, in good faith last year, I tried to get this in the bill and it didn't work. I tried it again with this amendment. I was informed there was a problem with it, which I recognized. I tried to again in good faith offer a modification to it. My friend from Michigan is right; it does require some determinations by the Secretary which probably would take some time. I am not certain that is all that much of a reason to not allow it.

I still believe there should be an income cap. But the way the amendment is now drafted, quite frankly, I couldn't even support it because it didn't do what I originally wanted to do. There was an error in drafting. I tried to amend it. I can't seem to get the job done because of the time constraint. There was an action on my amendment; therefore under the rules, I have to have consent to get it modified. I have heard an objection to that. Since I can't get----

Since I can't get it done, since I can't modify it, I move to table my own amendment.

Well, I will not have any time left.

Madam President, I move to table my amendment.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Iowa leaves the floor, if the Senator from Iowa has no further speakers on his amendment or wishes to speak any further, I am prepared on our behalf to yield all the time on our side if he would like to yield the time on his side so we can move the process on, and if the Senator would like to ask for the yeas and nays right now before I seek to offer my amendment, I am happy to stand by for that.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say that he raises a good point about his amendment. I don't think it would be a difficult matter to drop that provision, or modify that provision, so that it would not preclude someone who had not filed an income tax return from being eligible for this particular program.

If the Senator wishes to modify his amendment to that effect, there would be no objection on our side. However, there would be objection to simply dropping the amendment, because too many people on our side are in agreement with the concept, and this is pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement.

Again, if the Senator wishes to modify the amendment, there would be no objection to that, although we would want to see the language, obviously.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2301, which is at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bennett, Roberts, and Snowe be added as cosponsors, and I also ask that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, when Congress rushed the so-called Cash for Clunkers Program to passage as part of the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriations bill, it had little time to consider how the program would work. Although the program is well-intentioned, many have criticized its efficiency and questioned the ability of the Department of Transportation to manage its application.

The program has only been running for a couple of weeks, but DOT is already saying the $1 billion appropriated for the program has likely been spent. But nobody really knows. Yet this bill would appropriate an additional $2 billion.

My view is that before we jump to spend another $2 billion of taxpayers' hard-earned money, we need to call a time out--clear all of the transactions that qualify, see how much it costs, and evaluate how much more, if any, we want to spend. If we appropriate more, we certainly should establish a tracking system to know how much the government is committed to pay each day so that we will know when to cut the program off before we again run out of money. In short, this crash program must be properly restructured now if it is to be continued.

There have been multiple complaints from dealers who have had trouble with the program. Some dealers haven't received their registration information, and some have had trouble accessing the system to submit transactions. This information is concerning because, if true, DOT presumably doesn't have an accurate count of how many transactions dealers have made compared to how much money is left in the Cash for Clunkers Program. In fact, it is my understanding that the National Automobile Dealers Association estimated that at least 200,000 deals have been completed but not yet successfully submitted to the Department of Transportation.

The confusion at DOT is evident. On Thursday, July 30, less than 1 week after DOT started to accept dealers' transactions, DOT told Congress that the program was suspended because the $1 billion had been exhausted. The next day, DOT said the program was not suspended and transactions could continue. On Sunday, August 2, Secretary LaHood was on C-SPAN's ``The Newsmakers'' and first stated that the entire $1 billion hadn't been spent. However, later in the interview, he said that the administration would only honor deals made through Tuesday, August 4, unless the Senate approves this bill. He then said, in the same interview, that DOT estimates there is only enough money to cover deals made through this week. The process is anything but accurate. Dealers should not have to bear the risk that deals they made in good faith won't be honored.

It is not only dealers who should be concerned about whether the government has accurate data needed to wind down the program before the funding runs out. Secretary LaHood recently said that the government will make ``a good-faith effort'' to reimburse all deals that are in the ``pipeline.'' But without appropriated money, he cannot make any commitment. Statements of the Secretary are not binding promises. Consumers are also entitled to certainty. That is why we need a timeout to assess where we are and redo the process to be fully transparent and accurate.

Specifically, my amendment would terminate the program as of August 7, 2009, at 11:59 p.m. to give a date certain to dealers and consumers to avoid any further confusion about whether all

dealer transactions will be honored. It would delay new funding for the Cash for Clunkers Program beyond the $1 billion already appropriated, except for such sums needed to meet all obligations through August 7 that may exceed $1 billion, which would be paid for by using unobligated stimulus funding designated for DOT. This addresses the concern that some dealers will be on the hook for deals that have not cleared before the program runs out of money. DOT currently has no mechanism in place to efficiently cut off transactions once the appropriated threshold is reached.

My amendment would require DOT to submit a detailed report to Congress, before any new appropriations are made, that evaluates the methodology it used to track the daily obligations incurred under the program versus reimbursements sent to the dealers. The reporting requirement would ensure that Congress can evaluate what changes have to be made to more efficiently disburse any future money allocated to the program and, importantly, be able to track the disbursements and obligations to ensure the latter do not exceed the funding available. To this end, my amendment would add a requirement that if future appropriations are made, DOT must track daily the number of transactions made and money left to be obligated for reimbursement to the dealers. Again, this would ensure that the DOT is working with the most up-to-date information so that no consumer or dealer would enter into a transaction if funding is already exhausted.

Some have questioned whether the Cash for Clunkers Program is encouraging consumers to purchase or lease fuel-efficient vehicles. On June 11, two of my colleagues even submitted an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that indicated the Cash for Clunkers Program was ``bad policy'' and ``would create handouts for Hummers.'' The report would also evaluate the fuel efficiency standards of the automobiles traded in and the new automobiles leased or purchased. Obviously, should we want to modify the terms of the legislation to meet some of the concerns expressed by the colleagues I mentioned, that could be done at that time.

I am very familiar about what happens to program extensions that are rushed through without any oversight. In 2000, the Arizona State legislature passed a well-intentioned law, much like cash for clunkers, which provided a tax credit for purchasers to buy vehicles converted to run on propane or compressed natural gas. The program was originally estimated to cost $5 million. However, lawmakers continued the call for the expansion of the program based on consumer demand. Before long, that small $5 million pricetag ballooned up to a $600 million budget liability. It was stopped in time to avoid the State from bankrupting itself.

I am concerned that we are putting American taxpayers in a similar position. If the additional $2 billion is simply appropriated for this program, will DOT come back to Congress in September and argue that we must extend the program yet again? Maybe there would have been more money committed than the $2 billion, as may be the situation now. Aren't we required to apply some metrics, in other words, to evaluate the benefits against the cost to taxpayers? I don't have to remind everybody how Congress views temporary programs. Former President Reagan used to describe them by saying, ``There's nothing more permanent than a temporary government program.'' That could well be the case here if we don't step back and evaluate the program, and if we don't ensure that any future funding for such a program is done in a more efficient manner than this particular program is today.

As I said, auto dealers are hardly the only business that would be happy to receive government assistance. So evaluating it at this juncture is very important, lest we make the same mistake in the future.

We rushed cash for clunkers once. I suggest that we should not make the same mistake again. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to support my amendment when the appropriate time comes.

I am happy to yield time to my colleague.

Madam President, would it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays, and when the time is yielded back, we can set the vote?

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Kyl amendment.

The Senator has a right to table his amendment. I would simply say that while he is correct that his amendment would be better if it were modified, and he would have had no objection on our side to that modification, it still makes an important point and I think it would have been supported by many people on our side of the aisle. I, frankly, would vote against the motion to table myself because I think it does make an important point, and I think we should be able to debate it and dispose of it.

The Senator has a right to table his amendment. I would urge those on our side to vote against the motion to table.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, automobile dealers view this program a little like ``A Tale of Two Cities''--the best of times and the worst of times. They are selling more cars, but they don't know if they are going to get paid from the Cash for Clunkers Program because there has been no ability to track the sales. As a result, we don't know whether we spent $1 billion, less than $1 billion, or more than $1 billion.

My amendment simply calls a timeout. It says if the amount of money exceeds $1 billion, then appropriate the amount of money that is needed to pay the obligations on the deals that have already been made and qualified. Then set up a process to track the money in such a way that we can tell whether we have exceeded the next appropriated amount.

That is the essence of the amendment. It asks for a study to determine whether there should be one other change; namely, a change to the particular fuel standard we are applying to the cars. Some believe it should be a slightly higher fuel standard.

I hope my amendment will be adopted to call a timeout, pay the obligations we have already made, and determine a method to track the money in the future so that if we do this again, we know exactly how much we have spent, the dealers can get paid, and the customers have the assurance that their deal can go through.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 403(E)1 of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution, S. Con Res. 13, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation provision contained in the bill.