Floor Statements

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 thank all of my colleagues for their support. I also thank Senator Reid for his amazing leadership and hard work. We wish everyone a wonderful and safe August. Thank you so much for allowing an important stimulus to continue throughout the month of August. We appreciate it.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, first I am so pleased to be here with the senior Senator from Minnesota, and I have appreciated her wonderful words about Judge Sotomayor, as well as her advocacy on behalf of Minnesota. We have a lot in common, Minnesota and Michigan, and so it is always a pleasure to be with the Senator from Minnesota.

I rise today to strongly support the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. Over 230 years ago, Alexander Hamilton called experience ``that best oracle of wisdom.'' His words continue to ring true today. Judge Sotomayor has over 17 years of experience on the Federal bench. She will be the most experienced Supreme Court Justice in over 100 years--a lifetime.

But it isn't just her years of experience that will make her a great Justice. It will be the experience of a uniquely American life--the American dream. She was raised in a South Bronx housing project where her family instilled in her values of hard work and sacrifice. At the age of 9, her father--a tool-and-die worker--died tragically. After that, her mother--a nurse--raised her the best she could. I would say she did a pretty good job.

Her mom urged her to pay attention in school. She pushed Sonia to work hard and to get good grades, which she did. She studied hard and graduated at the top of her class in high school. It was through education that doors opened for Judge Sotomayor, as they have opened for millions of other Americans.

After law school, she went to work as an assistant district attorney in New York, prosecuting crimes such as murders and robberies and child abuse. She later went into private practice as a civil litigator, working in parts of the law related to real estate, employment, banking, and contract law.

In 1992, she was nominated by President George H.W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate unanimously to serve as a district court judge. She performed admirably, and President Clinton--having been nominated first by a Republican and then again by a Democrat--elevated her to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

It is in part due to this enormous breadth of experience as a prosecutor, a lawyer in private practice, as a trial judge, and as an appeals court judge that the American Bar Association has given her their highest rating of ``well qualified.''

Judge Sotomayor's story is the American story--that a young person

born into poverty can work hard, take advantage of opportunities, and then succeed brilliantly and rise to the very top of their profession. Judge Sotomayor is really an inspiration to all of us. She is a role model for millions of young people of every race, class, creed, and background living in America today.

Last November, we demonstrated that every child in America really can grow up to be President of the United States. Judge Sotomayor proves that with hard work and dedication they can be a Supreme Court Justice too.

Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor.

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

Mr. President, I understand we are in the process of putting together a series of votes, but while we have a moment, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

First, I thank our leaders on this important Agriculture bill--the chairman, whom I appreciate so much for all of his hard work; he has a great bill in front of us, along with the ranking member from Kansas.

I wish to speak about legislation the ranking member, Senator Brownback, and I have been working on now for some time. The first piece of it has proven to be extremely effective, despite the naysayers. It has come back even more successful than we thought it would. I thank Senator Brownback for working with me. Making sure this is fully paid for within the recovery package is important to Senator Brownback, and this achieves that. I thank him for partnering with me and understanding the significance of what we have been working to do.

The CARS Program has truly been an incredible success. In only a week, it has proven to be an excellent way to stimulate the economy. Dealers haven't seen this level of customer excitement in years. I can tell you, as someone who grew up on a car lot--my dad and grandfather had an Oldsmobile dealership when I was growing up. This is important to small towns as well as big cities across the country.

We are not only helping to save the over 160,000 dealership jobs across the country, but it is making our air cleaner and reducing oil consumption. So far, we have seen a 61-percent increase in vehicle fuel economy, which I think is surprising, as we hoped for an increase and we hoped people would turn in vehicles with lower mileage and get a higher mileage vehicle. In fact, we have seen even greater results than we thought we would. They are trading in vehicles averaging 15.8 miles per gallon, and the new vehicles average 25.4 miles per gallon. So this is extremely significant.

What is even more important is that is $700 to $1,000 a year in lower gas prices for the average family. At this time, when money is so tight, when people are concerned about saving every penny, this is a good deal for consumers, a good deal for the environment, for the economy, small businesses, as well as, certainly, everyone involved in the auto industry.

It is also significant that 83 percent of the trade-ins are trucks and 60 percent of the new vehicles are small cars. So we are seeing people move away from their clunker truck into a more energy-efficient car. That is good news for the environment and for fuel economy for the average family as well.

This has been a great program, with over 250,000 cars sold. Dealers are packed and sales are booming. At a GM dealership in Ferndale, MI, foot traffic was up 60 percent just last week, according to the general manager.

It is not just dealerships being helped, as I indicated. Steel and aluminum producers have announced that they expect a benefit from the program, as more cars are made to meet demand generated by the program. Scrap recyclers, which supply the steel industry, which have also been hurting lately, are also seeing a pickup in business. The boost to these industries isn't just immediate either. Analysts predict that the benefits will have a lasting impact. So we are talking broadly about manufacturing materials, as well as the small businesses in the communities involved.

Getting people into showrooms and excited again is having a psychological impact on consumers and businesses as well. This is happening all over the country.

The Houston Chronicle reports that more than 70 percent of the clunkers being traded in are SUVs, and 84 percent of the new vehicles are small, fuel-efficient cars.

The Brownsville Herald in Texas quotes Don Johnson, the owner of The Real Don Johnson Chrysler-Jeep-Hyundai, who said:

This is a good deal for the people. It's a good deal for us

because we will sell more cars, but it's a good deal for

people.

The Daily Record in Dunn, NC, reports strong interest and increased traffic in dealerships. Dan Lowe, from John Hiester Chrysler Jeep Dodge in Lillington, NC, said his dealership is getting 25 to 30 calls a day about the CARS Program. He told the newspaper:

We are excited about anything that gets cars off the lot.

This is certainly doing that.

A Pennsylvania car dealer, Bill Rosado, told the Wall Street Journal:

I can't believe I'm saying this: I need more Chrysler

inventory.

Then he said:

My goodness, I've got to rehearse that line a couple times.

This program has been extremely successful in a very short amount of time.

The House, because of its success, as we all know, has acted to add additional dollars by moving from one program in the recovery package into this program. I thank them very much for doing that and for the leadership of my partner in the House, Betty Sutton, and the delegation from Michigan, who worked so hard, and also those from Ohio, Indiana, and others as well.

In the Senate, we have had great bipartisan support. Again, I thank my bipartisan cosponsor, Senator Brownback, and I thank Senator Voinovich as well. We have been partnering on something that makes sense. This is taking some stimulus dollars and putting them directly into a stimulus that is visible; it is working, it is putting money into the economy, and it is saving people money on gas. It is something I believe is important to continue.

I will close by also thanking our leader, Senator Reid, who has once again been extremely supportive of bringing this forward so we have an opportunity to vote. I am hopeful we will see a strong, bipartisan vote on this important stimulus.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I would like to engage Senator Kohl in a colloquy concerning funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program.

It is my understanding that this bill provides the budget request and will meet current demand according to USDA. I know that the House- passed measure includes additional funding to add caseload and bring new States into this critically important program. I strongly support the level of funding provided in the House-passed measure and expanding the program into the six States USDA has approved: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Delaware, Utah, New Jersey, and Georgia.

I hope that as this bill goes to conference we can work together to reconcile those differences.

I appreciate Chairman Kohl's assurance. This program is critically important to thousands of seniors in Michigan and nationwide who cannot afford to buy the foods they need to meet their special dietary needs.

Emerald Ash Borer

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address our growing workforce shortage. I am pleased to be joining my good friend, Congresswoman Lois Capps, a nurse herself, in introducing this legislation. Our legislation is supported by AARP, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the American Nurses Association, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, and the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties.

Since its creation in 1965, Medicare has provided some support for the costs of nursing education. While relatively small as compared to support for graduate medical education for physicians, $150 million vs. $9 billion per year, Medicare has for many years been the largest federal source of funding for nurse training. While nursing education and patient care needs have changed tremendously since 1965, Medicare's policy in this area has not kept up to date.

My bill amends Medicare to provide incentives to expand the number of advanced practice registered nurses, APRN, trained and to prepare them to undertake the essential cost-saving reforms to our health care delivery system: an increased focus on primary and preventive care, improved coordination of care, access to primary care and anesthesia services in rural and medically underserved areas, and enhanced efforts to reduce costly medical errors that will lower health care costs and improve patient care. This legislation also focuses on training nurses in community-based settings, such as community health centers, rural clinics and individual health professional offices, arming them with the practical clinical experience they need.

The respected economic analysis firm The Lewin Group has conducted a thorough analysis of this proposal. They found that it would increase the number of APRNs graduating by 25 percent. This is a very significant increase and one that is greatly needed. Additionally, training more APRNs will help us develop more faculty, which are desperately needed to train the next generation of nurses. Every nursing school dean in Michigan has told me that this is a huge issue to them.

This relatively modest investment in APRNs will provide Americans, especially those in rural and other areas of health care shortages, with the primary and preventive care, care coordination, and chronic care management they too often lack today.

At a time when our country faces a shortage of healthcare professionals, funding for the clinical education of APRNs, including nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists is vitally important to meet the demand for expanded health care, which is expected under a newly reformed delivery system.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address our growing workforce shortage. I am pleased to be joining my good friend, Congresswoman Lois Capps, a nurse herself, in introducing this legislation. Our legislation is supported by AARP, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the American Nurses Association, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, and the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties.

Since its creation in 1965, Medicare has provided some support for the costs of nursing education. While relatively small as compared to support for graduate medical education for physicians, $150 million vs. $9 billion per year, Medicare has for many years been the largest federal source of funding for nurse training. While nursing education and patient care needs have changed tremendously since 1965, Medicare's policy in this area has not kept up to date.

My bill amends Medicare to provide incentives to expand the number of advanced practice registered nurses, APRN, trained and to prepare them to undertake the essential cost-saving reforms to our health care delivery system: an increased focus on primary and preventive care, improved coordination of care, access to primary care and anesthesia services in rural and medically underserved areas, and enhanced efforts to reduce costly medical errors that will lower health care costs and improve patient care. This legislation also focuses on training nurses in community-based settings, such as community health centers, rural clinics and individual health professional offices, arming them with the practical clinical experience they need.

The respected economic analysis firm The Lewin Group has conducted a thorough analysis of this proposal. They found that it would increase the number of APRNs graduating by 25 percent. This is a very significant increase and one that is greatly needed. Additionally, training more APRNs will help us develop more faculty, which are desperately needed to train the next generation of nurses. Every nursing school dean in Michigan has told me that this is a huge issue to them.

This relatively modest investment in APRNs will provide Americans, especially those in rural and other areas of health care shortages, with the primary and preventive care, care coordination, and chronic care management they too often lack today.

At a time when our country faces a shortage of healthcare professionals, funding for the clinical education of APRNs, including nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists is vitally important to meet the demand for expanded health care, which is expected under a newly reformed delivery system.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I support rescinding section 10212 of the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. Section 10212 will rescind apportioned contract authority for States for infrastructure investment on September 30, 2009. If section 10212 goes into effect, my State could lose up to $100 million in transportation funds this year alone. While I support the intent of amendment No. 1904, offered by my colleague, Senator Bond, to rescind section 10212 and maintain apportioned contract authority for States, I believe it is more important to follow the direction of Chairman Boxer and pass H.R. 3357 as a clean bill with no amendments. Providing funding for transportation, unemployment insurance, and housing programs included in H.R. 3357 are vital for the State of Michigan, and we must pass this bill quickly rather than delay it in a long conference process. I look forward to working with both Chairman Boxer, who is committed to resolving the problems surrounding section 10212, and with Senator Bond to address this problem in a timely manner.

I wonder if I might ask unanimous consent for 1 minute before we go to a vote?

Mr. President, I know there is a point of order against this amendment, but despite the intent, which I appreciate and agree with, of protecting taxpayer dollars, unfortunately, the way this is designed, it would actually put taxpayer dollars at risk by creating an end deadline so that we would have all of the taxpayers' interests coming up at the same time. It would lower the value. It would put the companies at risk of a takeover, which I don't believe my colleague or anyone in this body would want.

It is incredibly important that we not try to intervene with end dates that are, in a way, going to backfire in terms of putting taxpayer investment in these companies at risk.

Mr. President, I would first ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I want to recognize that tremendously hard work both the chair of the Armed Services Committee and ranking member are doing. We are very proud of the chairman, coming from Michigan, and of all of his excellent work in standing up for the troops. This bill is another example of that.

I would like to congratulate him and the Senator from Arizona for working together on this very important bill.

Health Care Reform

Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment on health care. We are hearing a lot, as we hear from colleagues, many colleagues--not every one but many colleagues on the other side of the aisle--about the need to be against health care reform, to be a ``no.''

We all know that saying no to health care reform means we are going to have the status quo. ``No'' equals the status quo. For too many families, too many businesses all across this country, that is absolutely not acceptable.

The status quo works, it is good--for special interests making profits off the current system. But it is bad for American families, American small businesses, American manufacturers that are trying to pay the bills and trying to make sure health care is available for the employees.

We need change. We are here because the system, with all of its good parts--and there are many strengths in the American system--is also broken in too many cases for people. We want to build on what works and what is great and we want to fix what is broken.

Right now our current health care system is bankrupting too many families. We know over 60 percent of bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses, and 75 percent of families who file bankruptcy actually have health insurance. Those with insurance, on average, are putting out medical expenses of over $18,000 when they file--even though they have an insurance policy.

There are many families--we are not only talking about those who do not have health insurance, but those who do who find themselves in very difficult situations.

I am constantly amazed when I hear the argument about: We can't do any kind of reform because reform means putting a bureaucrat between your doctor and yourself. You and your doctor can't make decisions about what you need for your health care.

Do you know who stands between you and your doctor right now? An insurance company, an insurance company bureaucrat. Your doctors can't just give you whatever tests they wish. You are not able to get whatever care you need for your family. The first call they make is to the insurance company, and it decides.

Reform is about putting health care decisions back in the hands of doctors and patients and being able to create a system that actually works for people. That is what it is all about.

I set up online the Health Care People's Lobby for those I represent in the State of Michigan so they could share their stories. We have a lot of folks lining the halls who represent all kinds of interests, all kinds of special interests, and they tell us what they think should be happening or not happening. But in Michigan we have set up the Health Care People's Lobby so people can share their stories about the real

world operating under the current system.

If the system worked today, there would be no reason for us to be here. We would be working on something else. But the fact is, we are spending twice as much on health care as any other country and have 47 million people at any one time who do not have health insurance. Those two numbers don't add up.

On top of that, people who are currently covered are battling every day to try to get what they thought they were paying for or to make sure their family is covered or that test or procedure or medicine can be covered.

One constituent of mine in Michigan, Sandra Marczewski from Waterford, MI, wrote to me that she and her husband have been without insurance for 7 months now. She writes:

You have no idea the fear I walk around with every day.

That is too many people in Michigan, over a million people in Michigan, without insurance altogether, and millions more who are fearful every day if they lose their job, their health care goes with it, for themselves and their families. People every night are putting the kids to bed and worrying about whether someone is going to get sick, saying a prayer: Please, God, don't let the kids get sick. Don't let me get sick. I have to be able to go to work so I can make sure we still have our health care.

There are a lot of people, as I mentioned before, who make a lot of money off of the status quo, off of the current system. It is no surprise they don't want to change it. All the ads we see, all the things going on, all the scare tactics that are going on--and there are plenty of scare tactics going on right now--all of that is about trying to scare people and raise red flags. It is easy just to be no, no, no. We certainly hear that around here all the time, people who are just saying no to any kind of progress or change or making things better for people.

The reality is, the status quo for a lot of folks means more profit, and that is underlying a lot of the motivation of what is going on right now. Our job is to make sure the American people can afford health care and have the care they need for their families. For too many families, the status quo means insecurity, expenses, and fear that come along with not knowing whether they are going to be able to afford the health care they have from month to month and whether they will, in fact, even have health care.

We are here because when it comes to health care, American families and businesses are in a serious crisis, and they are asking us for action. The status quo is not good enough anymore. It is not working. It is going to bankrupt families, businesses, and the country. High health care costs are causing cuts in benefits, increases in premiums, adding to the ranks of the uninsured at alarming rates. Even those who have insurance, as I indicated before, are feeling the pain of the current system. Every day in America families are forced to choose a different doctor because their health care plan was changed, because their employer can no longer afford the old plan they had.

Skyrocketing health care costs make American businesses less competitive in the global economy. It costs us jobs, and I can speak directly to that coming from the great State of Michigan.

Every day in America, families see their health care plan benefits eroding because they cannot keep up with high premiums, copays, and deductibles. Every day in America, people decide to skip a doctor visit and the medication and treatment they know they need because they cannot afford the payment--in the greatest country in the world-- because the expense is too high. Year after year, as health care costs increase, American families are losing the very parts of their health care they value most: their choice of doctor, hospital, and insurance plans; their choice of treatments; the security and stability that comes from knowing they are covered if anything goes wrong. That is what we are about fixing. That is what we will fix as we do health care reform.

Recently, Families USA found that the average costs of family coverage in the workplace rose 78 percent in 7 years--78 percent. During those years, health insurance company profits ballooned 428 percent. At the same time, wages went up about 15 percent. So wages go up 15 percent, health insurance profits go up 428 percent, and premiums just keep rising for businesses and individuals.

The fact is, we cannot wait to get started on reform. The status quo is not acceptable and ``no'' equals the status quo. So we are here working with colleagues to get it done. Doing nothing is not acceptable.

Recently, the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released a report that projects if Federal reform efforts are not enacted within 10 years, the cost of health care for businesses could double and the number of uninsured could rise to over 65 million people with middle- class families being hit the hardest. The report shows if health care reform is not enacted, individuals and families would see health care costs dramatically increased.

Total individual and family spending on premiums and out-of-pocket costs could increase 68 percent in the next 10 years. I cannot imagine 68 percent out-of-pocket costs. That is if we do nothing, if we listen to those just saying no. Even under the best-case scenario, health care costs would likely increase, according to this report, at least 46 percent. And I can tell you absolutely wages are not going to go up 46 percent. Businesses could see their health care costs doubled within 10 years. The report found that employer spending on premiums would more than double, and even in the best-case economic condition, employer spending on health care will rise 72 percent. The result would likely be far fewer Americans being able to be offered insurance or accepting employer-sponsored insurance. Estimates suggest a drop of 56 percent of Americans who are now covered by their employers, dropping from 56 to 49 percent in 10 years.

So there are many numbers. There are numbers that relate to the public programs of Medicaid and children's health insurance and the increased cost there as well and what will happen if we do nothing. The amount of uncompensated care in the health care system will increase, and the worst-case scenario: the total of uncompensated care could double.

By the way, when we say ``uncompensated care,'' that does not mean somebody is not paying for it. That is why our premiums, if you have insurance, go up so much. It means someone can't afford to see a doctor, can't take their children to the doctor, so they don't get the tests on the front end that they need or they don't see a doctor. They wait until they are really sick, and then they go to the emergency room. They are served, as they should be, and it is the most expensive venue in which to do ongoing care for people. But they are served, and then guess what happens. Everyone who has insurance sees their rates go up to pay for it.

That is what it means when we say that covering the uninsured will lower costs as we go out. I mean it will take time to do this, but over time what we are doing is working to change the way we pay for health care now because we pay for it in the most expensive way, by ignoring the problem, not focusing on health and wellness and primary care but waiting until people are in the worst possible situation: they go to the emergency room, they get care when they are sicker than they otherwise would be if they could see a doctor. And then we pay for it. That is what we want to change and will change under health care reform.

So this is about many facets. We know we have a system in America that works for many; they are blessed. We are blessed to have health insurance. For the many who have insurance, it allows them to cover their family needs. The system works well. But for many others it does not. And the reality is, we all pay for a system that does not work effectively for everyone. We all end up paying because the reality is, you can say: Well, I am not going to buy a car, I do not need car insurance; I am not going to buy a house, I do not need house insurance, but sooner or later, you are going to get sick, and just because you don't have health insurance does not mean there is not going to be a cost for yourself and your family.

We are a great country. We can do better than what we are doing today. We have to do better. We are working hard to have a bipartisan effort that will move reform forward in this country, to make a real difference to

change the system so it works for everyone and begins to lower the cost over time of what is happening, the explosion in health care costs in this country.

The option of saying no is not good enough. ``No'' equals the status quo. We just cannot have that. The public gets it. It is time for us to get it as well and move forward. I yield the floor.

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

Thank you. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, thank you, very much.

First, I want to congratulate, actually, on the underlying bill, my friend and colleague and the leader of the Armed Services Committee for all of his hard work on the bill that is in front of us. It is so important for the troops. I thank him for his leadership in such a strong way on behalf of the men and women who are serving us every single day and for all the things they need to be able to be supported, along with their families. So this is a very important bill, and I am hopeful we are going to be able to move through this very quickly.

Health Care

Madam President, I did want to take a moment, though, tonight to talk about health care, about the specifics of the bill we have been working on now for about a year. We have had forums and meetings and drafts and proposals and working sessions for about a year now, I believe. I commend Senator Baucus for the incredible amount of time he has put in, as has his staff, with he and Senator Grassley, working, as they always do, so well together.

There has been a tremendous amount of effort that has gone into this, and we will speak more as the process moves along about the specifics of the health care legislation. But tonight I want to take just a moment to talk about why it is so important to do it.

If the system worked well now for everyone in the country, if everyone could find and afford health insurance, we would not be having this discussion. We would not have had this debate. This would not be something that would be a top priority for the President of the United States.

But the reality is, the current system does not work for everyone. Even if you are part of the majority that has health insurance, you are probably seeing your copays go up, your premiums go up. You may be worried about whether you will lose your insurance if you lose your job or your spouse loses his or her job. You may be in a situation where you cannot find insurance because you have a preexisting condition that the insurance companies will not cover.

There are many reasons why people today, even though they have some kind of insurance, are incredibly worried about the future, about what happens when they get sick or what happens when the kids get sick.

Then, for those who do not have any health insurance, of course, it is an even more challenging story. We know there are millions of Americans--47 million and counting, in my home State of Michigan alone over 1 million people--who have no insurance at all. What happens to them when they get sick or when the kids get sick?

So this is a huge issue, and the time has come to decide that health care is a right, not a privilege, in the greatest country in the world.

We have been working for years. It has been 90 years--ever since President Roosevelt wanted to have a health care system that all Americans would be able to use as part of the Social Security Program-- that we have been trying to do this, trying to get it right. At that time, 90 years ago, there were not the votes to do that. Since then, Harry Truman wanted to have health care reform. It did not get done.

President Johnson initially wanted to have a system that every American would be able to benefit from. That did not get done. But I am very proud that a first major step was taken with President Johnson and a Democratic majority and some Republican colleagues joining with them. I hope we are going to see that kind of bipartisan effort now. But we ended up with something called Medicare.

If seniors or people with disabilities could have been able to get health insurance that they could find and afford at the time, Medicare would not have passed in 1965. It passed, along with Medicaid for low- income seniors and families, because people could not find insurance. They could not afford it. That is why it passed.

We are now in the same situation. Since that time in 1965, there have been a number of different efforts. A very important effort, one that there was bipartisan support to do, children's health insurance, was put in place--but still, not a system in America where everyone would be able to afford to buy insurance, to be able to get health care for themselves and their families.

So here we are today. It is time to finish the job that was started years ago, to finally say: OK, we understand that health insurance is not like other kinds of insurance. You can choose not to buy a car if you do not want to, and you do not have to have car insurance. You can choose not to buy a house and not have homeowners insurance. You cannot choose not to be a human being and to get sick. So it is different.

So the question for all of us is not whether people will ever need to use the health care system or whether they ever, in fact, will get health care; it is when and how and how expensive it will be.

One of the major reasons today that the health care system is so expensive--and, in fact, we spend twice as much as any other country on health care. When you think about that, how crazy is that? We spend twice as much as any other country on health care and have over 47 million people with no health insurance. Any economist would kind of look at that and say that is crazy.

But we have a system now where the people who are uninsured or underinsured--or have their premiums and copays going up too much where they cannot afford to use their insurance--go to the emergency room, moms and dads going to the emergency room with their children.

I have had the opportunity to visit emergency rooms, both when I have been in an emergency but also just there with emergency room physicians, with the nurses, to watch what happens. Anytime you have seen that, you

know there are lots of moms and dads who have no other choice for their children than to take them to the emergency room.

We also have more and more people who, because of dental problems-- the inability to get basic dental coverage--end up in the emergency room of the hospital. When that happens, people are served. That is the job of the hospitals, and I believe we should be focusing on emergency rooms and emergency room physicians and giving them extra support because of what they do. But the reality is, they are served. Then who pays for it? Well, everybody who has insurance pays for it because the hospital then takes the uncompensated care and rolls it over into the costs of those with insurance. That is the system today. People get care.

They walk in the emergency room sicker than they otherwise would be-- maybe waiting until late Friday night to have something happen, hoping they were not going to have to go to the doctor because they could not afford it, and they end up in the emergency room on the weekend.

The reality is, we have now institutionalized the system that is the most expensive way possible to provide health care in this country. So that is a huge issue.

We know if everybody is in it, if everybody is part of the system, and we spread all the different ages and health conditions and geographic disparities and all of the different pieces and variables in the system, and we have everybody in some way covered--everybody in-- costs actually go down, which is also different than other kinds of goods and services. So health care is, in fact, different.

But we now have a system where we are paying for this and providing for this in the most expensive way possible. So there are many reasons--many reasons--why we need to have a sense of urgency about health care and what we are doing here. We need to remind ourselves daily that this does not go away just because we are not paying attention. When we are not paying attention, the prices go up. When we are not paying attention, people get sick. When we are not paying attention, businesses continue either not to be able to cover their employees or drop coverage because of what is happening on the costs.

The only question we have is, when are we going to act? That is the only question for us--not whether we are going to pay for it but it is how we are going to pay for it. Are we going to create a system that over time actually lowers costs by doing the right thing and having a system that incentivizes the right things or are we going to continue to do what we do now: costs going up, exploding, and the availability of care going down? That is the system now.

As we discuss all of these issues, it is very complicated. All of us involved in this wish it were not. This is an incredibly complicated issue. As we have been working our way through this very hard, we have heard from lots of people in this discussion, those who operate as a business, who make a profit off this current health care system, those who are involved in it in various capacities. But I don't think we hear enough from those who are affected, from people in Michigan, people in North Carolina, people around the country who are trying to take care of their families, trying to be healthy, trying to get the care they need when they are sick, operating under this system.

Because of that, I set up on my Web site something I am calling my Health Care People's Lobby. We have lots of lobbyists here. I have invited people from Michigan to be a part of my Health Care People's Lobby and share their stories about what is happening for them. I wish to share a few of those comments with my colleagues this evening, from thousands of people who are now a part of my Health Care People's Lobby.

Tricia Kersten from Bloomfield Hills, MI, says she doesn't understand why some Senators don't seem to understand the ``unbelievable, daunting, and debilitating effect the cost of health care causes their voters.''

She is right. We all need to be paying attention to that. The cost of health care today, as I mentioned, is crushing our families and businesses, large and small, and that has to be part of--and it is, it is--part of the goal. In fact, it is at the top of the list in terms of our goals--lowering the cost.

Janet Rodriguez, St. Joseph, MI, wrote that her health care premiums for her family of three are over $700 a month. Because her employer pays a portion of her premium, and because those premiums are going up and up every year, she hasn't gotten a raise in 3 years.

This is a very common situation for workers who get their insurance through their employer. More and more people are having to trade off getting a wage increase that would help pay the mortgage and food and clothes and send the kids to college for a health care cost increase that is occurring, and their employers having to pay more of that or their having to pay more of that.

Cheryl Crandall of Pontiac, MI, is about to lose her COBRA benefits next month and has been shopping for personal insurance. Within 2 weeks, the price had already jumped from $22 a month to $667 a month. So it was $22, and it jumped to $667 a month. That is $150 more than her house payment. She says: ``We are very, very frugal people. No big vacations, no expensive toys, and we are not impoverished yet. But premiums like this for mediocre coverage, large deductibles, large copays, can break even the most stable family.''

We know that is what is happening. Her story is shared by thousands and thousands of people I know across Michigan.

Our current health care system is bankrupting too many families. We know that over 60 percent of bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses. Seventy-five percent of families who file for bankruptcy actually have health insurance, and those who have insurance on average have medical expenses of over $18,000 when they file, even though they have a health insurance policy. It is even worse for those without insurance.

Sandra Marczewski from Waterford, MI, wrote to me that she and her husband have been without insurance for 7 months. She writes: ``You have no idea the fear I walk around with every day.''

This is a fear faced by millions of Americans, tens of millions of Americans, hard-working Americans, people who have done the right thing their whole life and now find themselves struggling in this economy and facing that fear. After they put the kids to bed at night they say a little prayer: Please don't let the kids get sick. They stay up worrying about what is going to happen if they do get sick; avoiding that cancer screening because they don't want to hear it if it comes back positive, because they don't think they can do anything about it. It is a fear that grips the heart of too many Americans, and it is so critical that we move forward in a way that will allow us to address what is happening with American families.

Lee Harshbarger of Ypsilanti lived with that fear. He had no health insurance for 9 years. Thankfully, his wife's job now covers him, but they worry every day: What will happen if she loses her job or if her employer has to cut back on insurance or drop insurance? What will happen then?

It is not just families who are hurting either. We know it is our businesses, large and small. I have had so many small business people come up to me and say: You have to do something. I want to cover my 10 employees, my 5 employees. I can't even find insurance for myself at a reasonable rate, let alone the small group of people who work for me.

A.J. Deeds from Ann Arbor, MI, used to operate a small business in Birmingham. They had 12 employees and they offered them health insurance, but they soon found their competitors didn't offer these benefits and they were left behind competitively, so they faced what many businesses and families face, which is a race to the bottom. You can't compete if you offer health insurance or a good wage, so you drop the health insurance and you push down the wage.

By 1997, he wrote, they had to stop providing health insurance because they couldn't afford it anymore and be competitive with the other companies that didn't offer insurance. That same year, A.J.'s first child was born and his monthly insurance premium shot up to over $800 a month for three people.

Some have argued that a public health insurance plan would put bureaucrats between you and your doctor. How many times have we heard that? But right now, we have a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, and it is an insurance company bureaucrat. This notion that the doctor can offer whatever tests or procedure he or she feels they should for you is just that; it is not in the real world. It is not real that an individual who has insurance can go out and see a doctor or see any doctor they want, get any procedure, any treatment they want. They first have to look through mounds of paperwork in the insurance policy to see if it is covered, and then the first call the doctor makes is to the insurance company to determine whether they will pay for it.

I believe it is incredibly important that we create a system--this is what we are working to do--that is much more about doctors and patients, much more about that. A critical part of this--and I appreciate that the industry is supportive of this--is changing the system so that someone can get insurance if they have a preexisting condition, that we change the rating bands to make it more affordable and do a number of other insurance regulation reforms. This is incredibly important. But it is also true that right now, your decisions about health care depend upon, A, whether you have health insurance; and B, what it will cover, what the copays are, what the premiums are. You are in a box that is dependent on whatever that insurance policy is and what it will cover. The worst thing is when someone pays in for years and believes something is covered, and it should be covered, and finds out it is not or finds out they are ill and are then dropped. So there are a number of changes that need to take place there as well.

I have to put a plug in because in Michigan we have, by State statute, established BlueCross BlueShield as a nonprofit to insure everyone in the State, the insurer of last resort, and that has worked very well for us, and I am very appreciative of the great work they do. That is not true everywhere. I think we have some serious issues around the for-profit insurance companies that we need to take a look at as relates to the costs that people are paying.

Robert Balmes from Negaunee, MI, up in the Upper Peninsula, had to jump through hoops with his insurance company to get a medical device he needed. He was forced to deal with the company's in-network sellers, even though he could have gotten the same device much cheaper from a different supplier. His 20 percent copay would have been much lower if he could have gotten the device from the seller of his choice. If he could have gone where he wanted to go, it would have been cheaper, but he wasn't given the choice by the insurance company. He had to pay what the insurance company said or pay the whole thing on his own.

Bea Stachiw from Rochester Hills is also fed up with her insurance company. She has an individual policy, which is one of the most expensive ways you can get insurance, that costs her $400 a month as an individual, which she describes as ``sketchy, at the least, where I have to pay $2,500 up front as a deductible.'' She is limited to two doctors' visits a year. So two doctors' visits. Talk about coming between you and your doctor--two doctors' visits a year, and she has a copay. She needed a routine medical procedure and had to pay over $700 out of her pocket. For people struggling to make ends meet, those kinds of costs are not acceptable. People can't afford this.

Again, this whole process of health insurance reform is about supporting doctors and nurses to be able to do what they were trained and want to do, and to be able to make health care available to Americans, young and old, with families, without, small businesses and large. That is what this is all about.

I am very pleased we are working on an approach that would give people choice, that would allow people to keep their insurance if they wish to, and I think that many people--again, my own family would say, we want to keep ours. Well, we are not in the Federal system, so we know that many people would say they are satisfied, that they like what they have. I say, great, to that. We want to make sure, No. 1, that people can keep what they have, but if the system is broken for you, we want to fix it. That is what health reform is about. Keep what you have if you like it. Let us fix what is broken so everyone has the opportunity to have the health care they need.

There are a number of ways in which we are working to do that. I mentioned earlier making sure that everyone is covered, a part of lowering the costs so we don't have too many people using the emergency rooms inappropriately. We know that payments to providers drive the system, and the proposal we are all working on would focus on quality, not quantity, of tests; would focus on health and wellness, not sickness, so we are incentivizing those things that allow people to be healthy, that encourage and support primary care doctors as the first line of defense, and nurses as a first line of defense so that people being able to get the care and the funding they need, the screenings, the prevention they need, that is all part of this very important change.

The long-term savings in the system come from changing the system to health care rather than sick care and quality rather than quantity. We also know that, as I said before, insurance reform is an incredibly important part of it, so everyone can get the insurance they need, that it is affordable, and that they know they won't be dropped if they get sick.

Finally, it is very important that we have the right mix of choices, that we have private sector options but that there also be a public health care option that is consumer driven, that is a benchmark on the true cost of providing health care, so there can be competition. It needs to be level and fair competition. I believe we need that competition.

Madam President, we have a lot of work to do in the coming weeks. It is very important work. The American people have waited long enough for us to get this done. We know it is complicated. People of good will are working to come together on an approach, but we need to get it done because people in each of our States--my great State of Michigan and across the country--are counting on us because the system doesn't work now for too many people. It is not acceptable. Getting sick is not a choice. Worrying about your children, your family, your moms and dads, your friends and neighbors, and what will happen to them when they do get sick is a fear or a worry we need to be able to address. We need to take that worry off of the American people and say that we get it.

Health care should be a right, not a privilege, in the greatest country in the world. That is what this work we are doing is all about. I very much hope we are going to have a product that will be widely supported and that we can move it on to the President as soon as possible.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 30 years ago this November, two Americans were killed when a mob attacked the American Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. I wish to pay tribute to those men, Marine CPL Steven Crowley and Army WO Brian Ellis.

Just a little over 2 weeks earlier, 66 Americans had been taken hostage by students in Tehran. On November 21, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, took to the airwaves and falsely accused American troops of occupying the Great Mosque in Mecca.

Protests raged against the United States throughout Pakistan that day. A student protest formed outside the gates of the American Embassy compound in Islamabad, but it quickly turned violent. Protesters broke down part of the wall, surged into the compound, and began shooting at American forces, breaking windows, and setting fire to the buildings.

Most of the Embassy staff members were able to get to a secure communications room, where they remained for over 5 hours until the Pakistani military arrived to quell the rioters. Corporal Crowley was killed while protecting the compound; Warrant Officer Ellis was found burned to death in his apartment on the compound. Two Pakistani employees of the Embassy were also killed by rioters that day.

This weekend, survivors of that attack will meet at Arlington National Cemetery. My thoughts and prayers will be with them as they remember those whose lives were cut short that fateful day in November.

Steven Crowley and Brian Ellis died in the line of duty, serving their country and defending American lives. Their service must not be forgotten.

Madam President, I was necessarily absent for tonight's vote on the nomination of Robert M. Groves, of Michigan, to be Director of the Bureau of the Census at the Department of Commerce. I was in Michigan attending an event with the Secretary of Agriculture. Had I been present for the vote on this nomination, I would have voted in favor of both the motion to invoke cloture and on confirmation of the nomination.

Mr. President, this resolution will bring more attention to the crucial need for more minorities to become bone marrow donors. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Isakson of Georgia, and my good friend, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, in supporting this important endeavor.

According to A Bone Marrow Wish Foundation, bone marrow transplants can cure over 70 life-threatening diseases such as leukemia. About 70 percent of patients will need a nonfamily member to donate healthy marrow.

Generally, minority patients will need a match from someone who shares the same ethnicity. But finding a successful match can be a huge challenge: although there are more than 6 million potential donors registered, only 450,000 are African Americans.

I know from firsthand experience how important such a donation can be. Last year, any chief of staff, who is Latina, made a donation to a 9-year-old child with leukemia.

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in encouraging more Americans to learn more about bone marrow donation and perhaps consider being a donor themselves.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the National Marrow Donor Program be printed after my remarks.

Mr. President, let me communicate that we are talking about a motion to waive less than 1 percent of this bill. It is an emergency bill. It is a supplemental. It is less than 1 percent. In terms of the overall scope of what is before us, it is small. But I can tell you, in small towns and cities all across America, this is a big deal.

We have up to 3 million people who, in some way, work with our automobile industry. We have small businesses all across this country that are looking at this vote. We have had colleagues come to the floor. We have had hearings held, letters, and press releases about helping dealers at this time. This is the moment. This is the moment and the vote as to whether we will do that.

I am very grateful for the chairman of the committee and his graciousness in working with us on this issue and to our leadership.

We know that while this has not come through the regular process in the Senate, in the House it went through the committee. It was reported out of committee. It was passed on the House floor, with 298 votes from Republicans and Democrats. Over two-thirds voted for this.

The reason it has been moved into this emergency supplemental is because it is an emergency, because we are seeing dealers that have been told they are going to have to phase out who have inventory to sell. We are seeing dealers all across America that are seeing sales go down and down and down; and the question is, How long are they going to be able to hold on?

The average dealer hires 53 people in their dealership. These are small businesses. I grew up on a car lot. My dad and my grandfather had a car dealership. I know what this is about for a small town.

When we look at the fact that from January to May every automobile company--for GM, it has been a 41.8-percent reduction in sales; for Toyota, it has been a 39-percent reduction in sales; and there are the reductions in sales for Ford, Chrysler, and Honda. All across the board, these sales are down.

This may not seem like an emergency to people here, but I can tell you, this is an emergency for families and small businesses, for an industry that has been the backbone of our economy for a generation, with up to 3 million people working in this industry. This, in fact, is an emergency and worth our time to put this into this bill as less than 1 percent--less than 1 percent--of the emergency spending that is in front of us.

Every other country with an automobile presence has, in fact, done something to help their industry. Germany found that in the first month, in January, when they put a similar kind of incentive plan in place, they raised sales 21 percent--21 percent at the same time our sales were falling 40 percent.

We have seen similar plans in China, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Great Britain, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia--Mr. President, Slovakia. But the United States has not yet acted on a program that has been effective around the world, when we have so many small businesses right now, literally, whose futures are hanging in the balance.

This is something supported by business and labor, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and, of course, the auto dealers.

I am also very pleased it is now supported by the Sierra Club. We know that, from an environmental standpoint, there is always more we can do. But we know this moves us in the right direction. In terms of the environment, this is a win with every single new car that is sold. Every car or truck sold under this program will be more fuel efficient, will be cleaner than the car or truck it replaces. That is a fact.

This bill will save 133 gallons of gasoline per vehicle per year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.45 million metric tons.

In 2010, vehicles from model year 1998 or earlier will account for 25 percent of the miles driven but 75 percent of all the tailpipe emissions.

So if we are able to get older vehicles, vehicles that are worth $4,500 or less, off the road--they are scrapped when they are turned in, so they can no longer pollute--and people buy a vehicle that gets 22 miles a gallon or more, or if it is 10 miles per gallon better than their old car, they get a $4,500 voucher. That seems to me to be a step in the right direction.

Is it all it could be? No. It never is here. We work hard. We take one step. We take two steps. We take three steps. But this is certainly a step forward.

This bill is about jobs. This is a bill about jobs. It is about small business. It is about the environment as well. We will see immediate reductions in fuel use, carbon emissions, and air pollution. Our constituents, from the major business organizations to labor and the Sierra Club, are supporting this effort. Not only are carmakers interested in this, as I have said already, but the people who work in the offices, the engineers, the designers, the clerks, the office managers, the salespeople, the mechanics, the car washers, the printers, the advertisers, local newspapers, television, and radio, who all depend on their local dealer. This is a program that has been successful around the world. There has been a tremendous amount of effort that has gone into this.

I thank the bill's sponsor in the House, Congresswoman Sutton, who introduced the first bill and worked so hard and introduced the bill that was finally passed. I thank all of those who worked together on both sides of the aisle to put together something that passed overwhelmingly in the House. It comes to us now in a bill labeled ``emergency spending.''

This bill goes way beyond just helping the automakers. It would particularly benefit dealers, auto suppliers, State governments, workers, communities, and consumers in every State in the country. I wanted to clarify for the record that this legislation is meant to include dealers in every State in the country. Although, the term ``State'' is used in several definitions of title XIII, I would like to clarify that the CARS legislation is intended to have the same meaning as the term ``State'' defined in 49 USC 32304(a)(14) to ensure coverage of the program in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories, just as it applies to the 50 States.

On behalf of the auto dealers, large and small, across this country, the people who depend upon these businesses, depend upon the making of these automobiles, the selling of these automobiles, I would ask my colleagues to please give us the opportunity for a short-term stimulus. This is a matter of a few months. It is less than 1 percent of this entire bill, which is an important bill for our country and our defense and for our troops. This is a small piece of what is in front of us, but for small businesspeople and Americans working hard every day across this country, it is a big deal and it is a chance to help. I hope we will.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to respond to my friend, the distinguished ranking member on the Budget Committee, who just spoke a moment ago about the supplemental and one provision, a very small provision, in this very large bill. I hope that when there is an effort to waive all the budget points of order, colleagues will support doing that while remembering thousands of small businesspeople across this country who are asking that we support them at this time of real crisis as it relates to automobile sales, not just in the United States but all across the world.

We have a global crisis right now. We know in our credit markets it has resulted in people not being able to come in and buy an automobile. It is compounded by the huge losses in jobs that we have seen where people cannot afford to come in and buy a new automobile.

My colleague spoke about small but symbolic measures. I would hope that our colleagues, who I know care deeply about dealers--we have heard this from Republican and Democratic colleagues; we have had bills held up on the floor to work on efforts that I was proud to join in helping our auto dealers.

I would certainly hope that colleagues would not decide for symbolism to focus on what is less than 1 percent of this supplemental--less than 1 percent of the supplemental--focused on helping America's auto dealers at this critical time. In terms of this supplemental, it is a very small amount of money. It has received a lot of focus from a lot of concerns, which I appreciate, on how things are written or how colleagues would do things differently. I appreciate that.

But the reality is we are in a crisis, not just in my State but all across the country and, frankly, around the world when we look at what has been happening to small businesses and communities across America. I know what this feels like. My father and grandfather had the Oldsmobile dealership in the small town where I grew up in northern Michigan. When I grew up, the first job I had was washing cars on the car lot. I know what has happened to small businesses across America right now that have played by the rules and, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a very difficult circumstance.

We have a small provision that has been given a lot of different names. One version of it has been called cash for clunkers. It is based on a bill on which I was proud to join with House Members that is called Drive America Forward. But it would incentivize people to go into these small dealerships across America and give them an opportunity, an incentive, or support to be able to buy a new car.

Why is this important? Well, we have seen from January to May of this year, compared to January to May of last year, across-the-board reductions in auto sales: 41.8 percent for GM; 39 percent for Toyota; 36.8 for Ford; Chrysler, 46.3 percent; Honda, 34.4 percent. It is pretty rough if you are an auto dealer and you see your sales going down month after month--30 percent, 40 percent--to be able to make the payroll every week for your employees. It is pretty tough to do that.

Around the world, we have seen efforts to help automakers, to help auto dealers, to help communities, to help middle-class consumers and those who want to be able to purchase a vehicle to be able to do that.

Our dealers, on average, employ 53 people each, over 116,000 people directly. That is the entire combined workforce of GM and Chrysler together. We are talking about a large number of people who have come in a number of ways to ask us to help them. This is one opportunity. This is it. This is what is in front of us.

We know how hard it is to move legislation through the House and the Senate. We are the last place, the last vote standing between helping the dealers of America and turning our backs on them. This is the last vote. This is the one vote as to whether we are going to be able to step forward and be able to help them.

Every other industrialized country, small and large, understands what has been happening, and they are fighting for their middle class. They are fighting for their jobs. They are looking for every class they can to help.

The question is, Will we? Germany began a program similar to the one that we are talking about that is funded through this bill in January. By the end of the first month, sales were up 21 percent, 21 percent. That is money in the pockets of small businesses and large dealerships. Across Germany it was so successful they extended it and had sales continue to go up as a result. When our auto sales were going down 41 percent, Germany's--during the same period--went up 21 percent because they said: You know what. We have to stop the bottom from falling out of this. It is too important for our economy. We want to do something about it. And they did. Now similar programs exist in a number of countries: China, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Great Britain, Spain, France, Italy, Australia, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia--Slovakia. If Slovakia can help their auto industry and their car dealers, I think the United States of America ought to be able to step up and help.

This is a small effort, a few months, to give a boost, a stimulus, to a group of small businesses, an industry that has been talked about on the floor many times and that we need to care about. This particular program is not only supported by Ford and domestic auto companies, but it is also, of course, supported by the National Auto Dealers very strongly, the United Auto Workers, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Steel Workers, the Automotive Recyclers Association, the Specialty Equipment Market Association, the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, the AFL-CIO, the Business Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

All have come together to ask us to do something and to support this effort. We are now at a point where we have to decide if we want to help. It is not just about the automakers. You know, we know that help--and a lot of it--is going to GM and Chrysler, and those of us who represent them appreciate that very much. But this is much broader than that. This is all kinds of dealers, all kinds of automakers. Not only those who work in the plants, whom I care about deeply, but it is people who work in offices, the engineers, the designers. This is an economic tsunami that has hit every part of the economy when we look at this entire industry: the clerks, the office managers, the sales people, the mechanics, the car washers, up and down.

The global credit crunch has had a devastating effect on everyone in our economy who relies on the sale of automobiles: Printers, advertisers, local newspapers, television stations, radio stations. They are all asking us to act.

This is a reasonable, focused, short-term effort to help those who have been having an extremely difficult time just holding their heads above water. We know this effort can make a difference.

I thank our House colleagues who have done a tremendous amount of work on this matter. I want to thank Congressmen Markey and Waxman and Stupak and Dingell and Boucher and others who were involved in putting this together and putting it into the energy and climate change legislation reported out of the Energy Committee in the House of Representatives.

I thank every one of the 298 Members of the House on a bipartisan basis. Over two-thirds of the House of Representatives voted for this legislation, and it was put into the supplemental in an emergency document, an emergency piece of legislation. It was put in there because of what has happened with the bottom falling out of the economy for dealers, dealers that have found themselves in very difficult circumstances because of bankruptcies, and dealers that are trying to move forward and trying to be able to survive during this economy.

I know there are colleagues who would like to see this have more energy efficiency provisions. I believe in the context of what we do going forward in the energy bill and climate change we can work together to fashion something that has a focus, an input, from everyone who cares deeply about these issues.

At this time and place, this legislation is a balance between those of us who are concerned about an immediate stimulus while meeting the needs and concerns about increased fuel efficiency. We are making amazing strides on fuel efficiency. The President of the United States, not long ago, announced increased fuel efficiency standards. No one in the industry objected. I did not hear objections. I certainly did not object. This is not about whether we need to increase fuel efficiency. We do and we are. We will continue to do that.

This bill, while being a short-term stimulus, also helps in that regard because it will give a voucher of either $3,500 or $4,500 toward the purchase of a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle.

When you look at your own home situation, anyone who is going to want to be a part of this is going to make sure their car, that automobile, is worth $3,500 or less or $4,500 or less. Someone is not going to turn in a $15,000 used vehicle to get a $4,500 voucher.

So, by definition, we are talking about older cars. Some people have said ``clunkers,'' and people have kind of thrown that around, and ``what does all of this mean''?

But we are not talking about a $50,000 vehicle with a resale value of $20,000 or $15,000. We are talking about older vehicles that are worth $4,500 or less.

The legislation requires, as has been done in other countries, when you turn it in, that the engine is scrapped, the parts of it that we do not want to continue to use--because of the lack of fuel efficiency-- are scrapped. We can recycle some of the other parts, but the basic transmission system is scrapped.

So we are talking about older vehicles worth $4,500 or less, the polluting pieces of the automobile are scrapped, and then we are talking about the ability to purchase a vehicle that is more fuel efficient. In the case of automobiles, you need a minimum fuel economy of 22 miles per gallon or more, you get a $3,500 voucher for a 4-mile- per-gallon improvement, and a $4,500 voucher if the new vehicle you purchase is 10 miles per gallon or more fuel efficient.

So there is a benefit from a fuel efficiency standpoint. There is benefit. I appreciate that for some it is not enough. I do appreciate that. There are those who would like to see something different, and certainly we will have opportunities to continue to work together in that regard.

But I go back to my original premise. At this time, in our economy, at this time with what has been happening on unemployment, what has been happening to businesses, large and small, because they cannot get capital, because of the ripple effect in the auto industry, of what is happening to suppliers, to dealers, to anyone involved in this industry--and 1 out of every 10 persons in America is in some way related to the auto industry--at this time we need to be prudent and balance what we are doing in a way that makes sure that all parts of the auto industry, domestic and foreign, can participate and that we are doing this as quickly as possible. It will not help as a stimulus if this is done 6 months or a year from now.

I don't know how much longer the car dealers in Clare, MI, where I grew up, can hold on, if they are losing 40 percent a month in sales. I don't know how much longer they can hold on. I don't know what happens to the Chrysler dealer and the GM dealer trying to turn over inventory now as they wind down. I don't know what happens. But I do know we will see more dealerships close. We will see more people lose their jobs. We are going to see more mainstays of local communities finding they cannot make it.

This is the moment. We won't get another chance. We will not get another chance. This is the moment to help. We have other opportunities to work together on other policies. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for all of the dealers who have been calling and asking for help, this is the moment. This is the vote. There won't be a second vote. So when you go home, think about what you want to say to the small business people, the auto dealers, office managers, mechanics, people who are involved in that business in your community, when you had a chance to help. I hope we will take it. I hope we will take it as the House did. I hope we will see overwhelming bipartisan support, as we saw in the House of Representatives for this particular policy.

I strongly urge colleagues to vote to override the budget points of order. All of them will be asked to be overridden. I encourage colleagues to do that. I hope we will show that we get it. Do we get what is going on in communities across America? This vote will say whether we get what is happening and have a sense of urgency about stepping up to help.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment that my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, and I will be introducing at the appropriate time, to this very important underlying bill that we have in front of us. I want to particularly thank our majority leader for supporting this effort, given the important timing of this particular legislation to the economy and to those involved in our auto industry--our dealers in communities across the country. I thank him for allowing us to put this forward and hopefully have the support of colleagues to be able to place this on this bill so it can be moved to the President as quickly as possible. Timing is very much of the essence on this amendment.

I also thank Senators Durbin, Voinovich, Levin, Brown, Mikulski, Lieberman, and others who are cosponsoring the legislation we have introduced, and those who are cosponsoring this amendment as well.

This is the Drive America Forward Act. It will save jobs in America. It will help our dealers across the country, both those who are going forward as dealers and those who, under Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, have been told that they will have to either liquidate or look for other options as business people. It will help stimulate the economy. This is very much a stimulus. It will save money for consumers. And it will also lower carbon emissions--all of that in one amendment. We are very hopeful that we will have a strong bipartisan vote at the appropriate time when this amendment comes forward.

Under the program that we are outlining in our amendment, consumers may trade in their older vehicles and receive vouchers worth up to $4,500 toward the purchase of a new vehicle that is more fuel efficient, a car or truck that is, in fact, more fuel efficient.

I thank colleagues in the House who have done terrific work on this particular piece of legislation. Chairman Waxman and Congressman Markey, and Congressman Stupak and Congressman Dingell from Michigan, worked together through the Energy and Commerce Committee in the context of the bill that was reported out a couple of weeks ago from Energy and Commerce on energy and climate change. They had this provision in their legislation. I thank them.

We have taken their language, working with them every step of the way. We have addressed some issues to allow dealers to make sure this is operationally going to work best in terms of the administrative side of it. We have combined those efforts into this amendment. It is critical that we pass it at this time.

It goes, really almost without saying, when we look at what happened yesterday with General Motors, when we look at what happened in terms of Chrysler--and we are looking for some very good news either by the end of this week or next week on Chrysler, hopefully to come out of bankruptcy--wouldn't it be a wonder that, as they do, we have in place an incentive program for purchasing new vehicles, turning in older vehicles and purchasing new ones?

We will get people back into these dealerships. We will be able to help communities across the country, neighborhoods, large and small, where the local dealership is, where, because of the economy, because of the lack of financing for too long--and we appreciate President Obama and the auto team in helping create the financing mechanisms for people to finance the purchasing of a vehicle and for dealers to finance their floor plans--for too long everyone was hit by the global credit crisis, the economy and the economy at large. We found an extremely difficult situation for dealers as well as the automakers and suppliers.

Obviously, there are still many challenges. We know that thousands of dealerships across the country are currently in peril. This is an opportunity to immediately stimulate auto sales, to bring people back into the dealerships, to turn in vehicles that are worth $4,500 or less--and this is a program where you are taking the old vehicle off the road, so we know we are not talking about somebody turning in a vehicle that is worth $10,000 or $15,000 for a $4,500 voucher--older vehicles, vehicles that we know are less fuel efficient, to turn those in, get them off the road, buy a new vehicle and, at the same time, have the other benefits that go with it.

We know that across the country it is not only the automakers about which I care deeply, as do others, and the great suppliers of the industry but the dealers, and from sales to administrative staff, to advertising outlets, to the local suppliers. Many dealerships are being forced to close or cut back because vehicle sales are down. This will help immediately. It couldn't come at a more important time.

The Drive America Forward Act will send buyers back to showrooms, keep people working in cities and towns across America.

President Obama called on us yesterday to pass a fleet modernization bill, to increase demand and get buyers back into the showrooms. Our bill does exactly that. Sometimes it is called cash for clunkers. Sometimes it is called fleet modernization. We call it a good old- fashioned jobs bill. This is Drive America Forward. That is exactly what we want to do with this amendment. It will stimulate the economy.

New vehicle sales are down nearly 40 percent compared to last year due, in large part, to the credit crisis, to job losses, and dwindling consumer confidence. It has affected every automaker, not only GM, Ford, and Chrysler, which I am very proud to have as part of Michigan's economy, but every single automaker has been affected which is why other countries have responded with similar plans.

If we look right now, auto sales are down 40 percent from last year. If we look at January to May of this year and January to May of last year, there is a 40-percent reduction. Imagine a dealer, an automaker or supplier trying to keep the doors open and 40 percent of their business is down. GM is down 41.8 percent; Toyota, 39 percent; Ford, 36.8 percent; Chrysler, 46.3 percent; Honda, 34.4 percent. We could keep right on going across the board as we look at auto companies and what is happening. This would be available to all the dealers, all the auto companies.

At this point, we want to make sure we are providing stimulus across the board in the economy. The average dealership employs 53 people, so we are talking truly about small businesses. That is almost 160,000 people nationwide, more than the combined workforce of GM and Chrysler. That is how many people work for dealerships. This is about getting people into the dealership, getting people back into a position to buy automobiles and to keep those folks working and keep the economy going in communities across the country. Moreover, local dealerships have cut spending on advertising, as companies have, which hurts newspapers and radio and television revenue at a time when local businesses are suffering. We know the stories. We have heard of the ripple effect. We have heard from those dealerships that are being given notice about closing, the impact of that.

I have said before, I grew up in one of those dealerships. My dad and grandfather, in a community of about 2,500 people in Clare, MI, had the Olds dealership. We were very proud of that. One of the side benefits for me is I always had an automobile to drive. That made me pretty popular among my friends, although they only let me drive the old ones. But the reality is, this is a part of the fabric of America. When we talk about my dad and grandpa's dealership, they were the ones sponsoring the Little League team and buying the ads in the newspapers and the nonprofits that were doing fundraising drives and so on. This bill, the Drive America Forward Act, will help places such as my dad's and grandpa's. That is what this is all about.

It is going to save money for consumers. The Department of Energy estimates that a consumer who drives a vehicle that gets 30 miles per gallon will save approximately $780 a year compared to a vehicle that gets 18 miles per gallon. We are saying under this program that if you have a car that gets 18 miles per gallon or less, you qualify. You turn it in, you can get a higher mileage vehicle and get from $3,500 to $4,500. We are saving consumers money by that.

In Michigan right now, everybody I know who is in Michigan could find a lot of ways to use $780 more as a result of that savings.

In addition to saving jobs, the program will save fuel. As buyers turn in their older, less-efficient cars, more fuel-efficient vehicles will take their place, and the fuel savings could exceed 1 billion gallons per year.

Finally, the bill helps lower carbon emissions. If the program removes 10 percent of the V-8 engines from the road, carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced by tens of millions of metric tons annually. It can take up to 20 years to replace most cars on the road today with new, more efficient cars. That could take longer because of the economic downturn. People are waiting to buy a new car. Automotive purchases are way down, about 40 percent. This will turn that around. This will help incentivize turning that around.

The oldest cars on the road are also the ones that pollute the most. The dirtiest 10 percent of the cars account for more than 50 percent of the smog and carbon monoxide. The dirtiest one-third of the fleet accounts for more than 80 percent of the pollution. The dirtiest one- third of the automobiles account for 80 percent of the pollution. I talk about these issues because they are very important. I also go back to the beginning. This is about a stimulus. This is a terrific thing, that we are adding cost savings and fuel economy savings and getting rid of carbon pollution. This is all very good. There will be others who talk about other ways to do this that would have more savings on that end. Unfortunately, it would sacrifice our ability to help the auto industry.

Right now what we have is the ability to do both. It is critically important that whatever we do, we make sure our American automakers can benefit. We have to make sure we are not putting in place something where the fuel efficiency standards, the goals are so high or written in a way that creates an incentive for foreign automakers, while curbing those folks right now who need our help the most.

This is a balanced bill. This gives us the ability to benefit from increased fuel efficiency. It gives us the ability to deal with cost, to deal with carbon pollution. But it does so in a way that, at the end of the day, treats American automakers fairly and gives them the opportunity fully to participate, so the Chrysler dealers we have been hearing from, the GM dealers, as well as the great Ford Motor Company will be able to benefit as much as the other companies. That is what this does. That is why there has been a tremendous effort put into this. It doesn't seem like it would take that much to put this together, but in order to make sure we are complying with our trade laws, so we were allowing any company to participate under our trade laws but making sure we were being fair to our own companies that have been here and created the middle class of this country and are going through so much right now, every single line has been reviewed and discussed and reviewed again.

The House did terrific work, putting together language that is fair for everybody. That is what this bill is all about.

In the context of talking about all the hard work, I thank my key staff person, Colleen Briggs, who has lived and breathed this issue for several months. I told her I would name this after her, at least in my office, because there has been so much work that has had to go into this effort. I thank her for her hard work. I thank also the White House auto task force that has been so committed to doing whatever we can to support jobs here, manufacturing jobs, auto jobs, and every way we can to incentivize, whether it is being able to get the financing one needs, supporting the industries as they go through the bankruptcy process or this incentive. I thank them for their support in doing that.

I also, once again, thank my friend from Kansas who has been a stalwart on this issue. We have had a true partnership on this which I appreciate very much. I very much appreciate that both of us are leading this effort, as well as other colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are cosponsoring this amendment.

I yield the floor.