quorum call:

reid mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, we will soon vote on a motion to waive a point of order. in the last congress we heard our colleagues say things like -- and i quote -- "i cannot understand how we can claim to support our troops and yet put them in increased jeopardy as a result of our failure to act." here's another: "it is so irresponsible to tell the young

men and women serving in uniform with the orders of our commander in chief that you are not going to get them the ability to take care of themselves." and "it's time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need." each of these quotes, mr. president, spoken by republicans, when a republican was in the house -- the white house -- each of these quotes was spoken by republicans when a republican was in the white house. today, with a democrat in the white house, some republicans threatened to stand in the way of our efforts to support our troops. our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, everything we've asked of them they have done and more. as always our troops and commanders have gone above and beyond. the least we can do is give them the basics they need to fight this war. this war against terrorists.

this bill does that. it gives our brave troops, including more than 1,000 men and women from the state of nevada, the resources they need to do their jobs and return home safely. it provides $80 billion for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. mr. president, in this important piece of legislation we are also dedicating billions of dollars to make sure we're prepared for and can spend to a potential flu pen democratic. we must -- flu pandemic. we must be ready. there is no other opportunity to be ready by this fall. we are dedicating billions of dollars in this legislation to strengthen the security along our borders. and we're also dedicating billions of dollars to support counterterrorism programs both at home and abroad. very important, mr. president. but in this bill we're not merely numbers. this legislation also contains our commitment to strengthening our military, rebuilding our relationships with key allies

around the world and reducing key security threats. rather than standing, i would hope, mr. president, rather than restoring our standing in the world some republicans are standing in the way, period. i repeat: rather than restoring our standing in the world some republicans are standing in the way. they are threaten toking block this entire bill and the good it does because of one small but significant part of it. that small but significant part is actually a tremendously important and good program. it's called cash for clunkers. mr. president, this isn't a program we're just going do-maybe it will work. this is a program that has been tested other places. in germany it has been tremendous for the economy. it helped our economy and our environment. here's how it works. if you trade in where are car over the next four months we will give you up to $4,500 toward a new car that is more

fuel efficient. sounds pretty good. everybody benefits. the environment, and the economy. those who oppose this may not think it's a worthy goal but they shouldn't hold hostage the quif meant and training our troops need -- equipment and training our troops need. they should not let less than 1% of this entire important bill sirch the wholsinkthe whole thi. tbhaw is what some are planning to do are they doing it to embarrass the president? because they don't think the troops need the resources to fight the two wars? why are they doing this? because everyone should understand, mr. president, if this point of order is not waived, this bill is finished. the house had a difficult time passing this legislation. the house got no support from republicans. the question is whether these

senators still agree that we must never walk away from our troops. or if they only believe it within their party is in the white house. mr. president, i sincerely hope senator republicans do not follow the lead of the house republicans. out of 435 members of the house of representatives, five republicans voted to support our troops. they had a different excuse in the house. different excuse. what they said, we're not going to do this because there's a small amount of money in there for the international monetary fund. there hasn't been a word raised here in this body over that because it's so important. it's supported by democrats and republicans over here, that particular provision in the supplemental. but here in the senate they have raised another issue: cash for clunkers. something saying it is not bad but they don't like this

version. they could do a version more environmentally friendly so result of that i'm voting against it. now, everyone should understand, especially those that care about our armed services and i know our american people support them 100%, all the american people should understand if there is not a waiver of this point of order the troops will not get their money. now, secretary gates has been very good. he hasn't sent out any blue slips telling them you will lose jobs to civilian employees first. and then the pink slips to others that they will lose their jobs permanently but that time is fast approaching. and we can't simply revitalize this bill in a matter of a few minutes. we've got to do it today. there are provisions in this bill that are important to our standing in the world. we've got to support our troops. and i personally with five children and 16 grandchildren,

i'm concerned about the flu pandemic that all scientists with rare exception are saying will hit us in the fall. we are spending this money at this time to be ready for that and have shots that people can get to stop them from getting sick or not getting as sick. so mr. president, our troops, each and every one of whom volunteered for duty are the last people who should be caught in the cross, "of political games manship and i would hope the point of order would be waived and the money for the troops would be on its way in a matter of hours. mr. cornyn: mr. president? mr. durbin: mr. president, i know there is controversy involved in the so called cash for clunkers, kind of a humorous name for a very serious proposal. let's be real honest about where we are in america today. we have seen the largest decline in automobile sales in 50 years, sales are down 29% and automobile production is down

46% from just 17 months ago. plummeting auto sales have reduced production and it has had a ripple effect across the economy forcing dealerships and factories to close. we have lost 280,000 american jobs in the automobile industry. that's what had is about -- 280,000 american jobs lost and more that will be lost if we do nothing. some would have us do nothing. while the automobile industry is roiling from job losses and declining production many consumers in the market for new cars are waiting, holding back. the purpose of this legislation is to put some movement into the purchasing of new automobiles. it is a targeted way to give incentives to americans to buy cars, gets them back in the show rooms, back on the lots, buying the car, moving the advisory, creating demand and create a more positive feeling about the automobile industry. are there better ways to have

written this? yes, i think i could have sit down with others and spent more time but that is the case on almost every bill before us. some argue, well, this just came up in the conference committee. well, it passed the house of representatives before it was brought up in the conference committee. i will concede that i wish that bill would have been debated and passed here but we didn't have the opportunity to do it. we literally didn't. this is a matter of seizing an opportunity that can make a profound difference. now, has this concept of giving cash incentives to customers to buy cars ever been tried? it turns out it has. it was tried in january of this year in germany where they offered $3,300 to consumers to replace old cars with new ones. at the end of the program's first month, car sales in germany dramatically increased by 2. the bad news: that same month, automobile sales in the united states went down by 41%. germany knew how to create a surge in purchasing.

by consumers. with a similar legislation to what's being brought to the floor. let's be honest about the automobile industry. next the housing industry is at the base of our economic pyramid. we need to make sure a strong auto industry is available to america so we can rebuild out of this recession and start creating jobs. those who want to kill this provision are walking away from incentives to put people back to work in the dealerships, selling cars, and producing cars, and services cars. understand what we are going to face if we do nothing which is what they want to do -- do nothing. i think that is a terrible outcome. if we want to stand behind recovering from this recession, restoring consumer confidence, if we want to move old cars off the road, the so-called clunkers, and bring new cars on the road with higher gas mile acknowledge, this is our opportunity. let's not get caught up in a procedural tangle here.

afternoon keep our eye on 280,000 americans owlts of work in 24 -- out of work in this industry. more to follow. this will be an important measure for us in the long run. we need to build on it. but, first we need to pass this today. as senator reid, our majority leader has said, it is an important provision in the house of representatives. without it, we're not sure we can pass this supplemental bill which has so man othey other ths including providing for the troops. it is a tell county balance that brings this -- it is a delicate balance that brings this to the floor. understand the gravity of this automobile industry being flat on its back at this point in time and realize we owe president obama the passage of this supplemental legislation. president obama did not want to ask for this bill to pay for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. but, unfortunately, the previous president made us fund the wars on an emergency basis so you had to come in with supplemental appropriations bills to pay for

the war. that's not going to happen again. next year president obama is putting it in the regular budget. this is one of the last things we have to do to clean up a situation left for this president by president bush. this bill, for automobiles, is one that has a broad cross section of bipartisan support. it included support of business and labor. the united auto workers, national association of manufacturers, u.s. chamber of commerce and national automobile dealers association as well as more than a dozen governors. it is important we defeat this procedural objection to this program. that we put this money into our economy, give people a chance to buy a new car that is more fuel efficient, put people back to work across america so we can start digging ourselves out of this recession hole. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. gregg: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mr. gregg: first off, i

appreciate the assistant majority leader collar frying the situation, that this waiver issue is about and solely about the issue of cash for clunkers, a piece of legislation that has absolutely nothing to do -- nothing to do with funding our troops in the field and was airdropped into a conference without being paid for adding $1 billion of new debt to our children's back. that's what this waiver is about. the majority leader has said that this waiver will in some way harm the ability to fund the troops. that's totally -- i believe that to be totally inaccurate. this motion comes out of a piece of legislation which the majority leader and the assistant majority leader authored. they wrote the bill called the

honest leadership and open government act. and that bill created this point of order specifically to address this type of situation where in a conference one or other of the bodies sticks into a bill that is a must-pass bill, language that has nothing to do with that bill and which is not paid for. and in this case it is $1 billion of spending not paid for which has nothing to do with the troops in the field. and the reason they structured the rule this way was so that it would not harm the underlying bill. so that if this point of order is successful, this bill goes back to the house and they can vote it and send it to the president and fund the troops. is it the position of the assistant leader that this cash for clunkers bill is so important that the house of

representatives would not fund the troops if the language wasn't in the bill? he is saying that the democratic leadership of the house is holding the funding of the troops hostage to spending $1 billion on an extraneous program which creates virtually no environmental improvement in our fleet and which is simply part of the economic effort to revive the auto industry. which we've already spent $83 billion on, by the way. is that what he's saying? that seemed to be the implication of his language that the house will not pass the funding for the troops if we take out of it under a rule created for the purpose of disciplining ourselves in this way a rule created by the majority leader and by the assistant majority leader, authored by them, and designed specifically to address this type of situation where a

conference is truly abused relative to funding and spending money which we don't have. that, i find, to be -- i don't believe that's realistic. i do not believe that the democratic membership of the house is going to vote against this bill if the cash for clunker language is taken out of it on a surgical strike under a procedural right which was created by the democratic leader and the democratic assistant leader. in addition, of course, there is the fact that pay-go is being violated here. and there is the great irony that the president of the united states surrounded by the democratic leadership on the senate and the house held a very

dramatic press conference at the white house at 12:30 in the afternoon saying that they were going to reestablish the pay-go rules for future spending. that new programs would have to be paid for. and then that house leadership went back up to capitol hill here and on the same day passed this cash for clunker bill which wasn't paid for and violated the pay-go rules. the hypocrisy of it is so extraordinary that it can't even be described. but that's what happened. and then in order to protect this bill which was an unpaid for violation of the pay-go rules, they stuck it in to the conference report to fund the

troops. how outrageous is that? so a pay-go point of order, which might take down this whole bill, isn't appropriate to me. but it is appropriate to make this very targeted point of order, which will only eliminate the cash-for-clunker language. the policy of cash for clunker is debatable. maybe it makes sense. maybe it doesn't make sense. but it certainly shouldn't have been put into this defense bill which is necessary for funding our troops. if it is a strong idea, let it stand on its own two feet here on the floor of the senate. let it be debated. let it, hopefully, be paid for. but at least let it be amended so that those of us who think it should be paid for can propose ideas for paying for it. under the bill as it's being handled now there are no amendments allowed. we have to take this billion dollars of new debt, like it or

not, whether we support the program or not, we have to pass a bill which is going to add this billion dollars of additional debt to our children's backs. it is a totally inappropriate way to legislate. and my effort here is not to slow down or to stop or to marginalize in any way the funding for our troops. i voted for every troop funding bill that's come through this congress and i intend to continue to vote for it. but it is to take out this language, which is inappropriate. to live by the rules that the majority leader passed, that the assistant majority leader put in place, rule 44, to live by the pay-go rules. to not in the name of addressing a special interest group spend a billion dollars that we passed the bill on to our kids and grandchildren. why should our grandchildren have to pay for cars we're going to buy today fro from people?

does that make any sense that for the next 20 years we're going to end up paying these bills? of course it doesn't make any sense. so we should take this language out. it's not going to slow this bill down. not at all. this bill will go back to the house. it will be passed, and it will be sent to the president. and it will be an act of fiscal responsibility and we'll be limiting the amount of debt we're putting on our children's backs, which is the way we should be approaching legislation around here. so, mr. president, i reserve the balance of my time. how much time -- the presiding officer: 16 minutes on the republican side. 10 on the majority side. mr. gregg: how much time does the senator from oklahoma need? mr. inhofe: 12 minutes. mr. gregg: mr. president, i will reserve the balance of my time. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan.

ms. stabenow: mr. president -- mr. president, let me indicate that we're talking about a motion to waive less than 1% of this bill. it's an emergency bill. it's a supplemental. it's less than 1%. in terms of the overall scope of what's before us, it's small. but i can tell you in small towns and in cities all across america, this is a big deal. we have up to three million people that 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 or not we will do

that. i am very great full for the chairman of the committee and his graciousness in working with us on this and to our leadership. while we know this has not come through the regular process and the senate has in the house -- it went through the committee. it was reported out of committee. passed on the house floor with 298 votes. republicans and democrats, over two-thirds voted for this. and the reason it's been moved into this emergency supplemental is because it's an emergency. because we are seeing dealers that have been told that they're going to have to phase out, who have inventory to sell. we have seen dealers all across america who are seeing sales go down and down and down and the question is: how long are they going to be able to hold on? you know the average dealer hires 53 people in their

dealership. these are small businesses. i grew up in a car lot. my dad and my grandfather had a car dealership. i know what this is about for a small town. and when we look at the fact from january to may every automobile company, g.m., 41.8%, toyota 39% reduction, ford down, chrysler, honda, all across the board these sales are down. this may not seem like an emergency to people here, but i can tell you, mr. president, this is an emergency for families and small businesses, for an industry that has been the backbone of our economy for a generation, up to three million people working for this industry. this, in fact, is an emergency and worth our time to put into this bill as less than 1% -- less than 1% of the emergency bill that's 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%. 21% at the same time our sales were falling 40%. we've seen similar plans in china, japan, korea, brazil, great britain, spain, france, italy, austria, portugal, romania, and slo slovokia, mr. president. slovokia. 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'm also very, very pleased that it is now supported by the sierra club. we know that from an environmental standpoint, there's always more we can do. but we know that this moves us in the right treks. in terms of the environment, this is a win with everything single -- with every single new car that is sold. every new car or truck sold under this program will be more fuel efficient, will be cleaner than a car or truck it replaces. and 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% of the miles driven, but 75% of all the tail

pipe emissions. so if we're able to get older vehicles, vehicles worth $4,500 or less off the road, they're scrapped when they're turned in so they can no longer pollute and people buy a vehicle that is 22 miles a gallon or more, or if it's 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 make one step. we take two steps, we take three steps. but this is certainly a step forward. this bill is about jobs, mr. president. this is a bill about jobs. it's about small business. it's about the environment as well. and we will see immediate reductions of fuel use, carbon emissions an