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 to live by the rules that the to live by the rules the majority leader past that the assistant majority leader put in place, to live by the paygo rules, to not in the name of addressing a special-interest group spend a billion dollars we

passed the bill to our kids and grandchildren. why should our grand children have to pay for cars we are going to buy today from people? i mean, does that make sense the next 20 years we are going to end up paying these bills? of course it doesn't make sense. so we should take this language out. it's not went slow this bill down at all. this bill will go back to the house and be sent back to the president and will be an act of fiscal responsibility and we will be limiting the amount of debt we are putting on our children's backs which is the way we should be approaching legislation around here so i reserve the balance of my time. how much time? >> 16 minutes on the republican side. ten on the majority side. >> how much time does the senator need? >> 12 minutes. >> mr. president i will reserve

the balance of my time. >> who yields the time? senator from michigan. >> mr. president, let me indicate we are talking about a motion to waive less than 1% of this bill. it's an emergency bill, a supplemental. 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 cities across america this is a big deal. we have up to 3 million people that in some way work with or automobile industry. we have small businesses all across the country looking at this. we have had colleagues come to the floor. we have had hearings held,

letters and press releases about helping dealers have this time. this is the moment, this is the moment and go as to whether or not we will do that. i am very grateful for the chairman of the kennedy and his graciousness working with us on this and to edward leadership. now, we know that while this the regular process and the senate has in the house went through the committee, reported the 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 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 who are seeing sales go

down and down and the question is how long are they going to be able to hold on? the average dealer high years 53 people in the dealership. these are small businesses. i grew up in a car lot, my dad and granddad had a dealership and i know what this is about for a small town and when we look at the fact from january to may, every automobile company, gm, 41.8%, 21, 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 the economy for a generation of to 3 million people working for this industry. this in fact is an emergency

worth our time to put into this bill less than 1%, less than 1% of the emergency bill 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 of january, when they put a similar incentive plan in place it raised sales 21%. 21% at the same time and our sales were falling 40%. we have seen similar plans and china got in japan, korea, brazil, great britain, spain, france, italy, austria, portugal, romania and slovakia, mr. president, slovakia. but the united states hasn't yet acted on a program that has been effective for bell world when we have so many small businesses

right now who literally whose futures are hanging in the balance. this is something supported by business and labor by the u.s. chamber of commerce and national association of manufacturers and of course autodialers and i also very pleased that it is now supported by the sierra club. we know that from an environmental standpoint there is always more that we can do. but we know that this move cells in the right direction. in terms of the environment this is a win with every single new car that is sold. every car under this program will be more efficient, will be cleaned in 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, model year 1998 or earlier will account for 25% of the miles driven but 75% of all of the tailpipe emissions. so if we are able to get older vehicles worth $4,500 or less of the road, they are scrapped when they return in so they can along pollute, and people and if it's 10 miles per gallon better than their old car they get authority $500 voucher that seems to me to be a step in the right direction. is it all it could be? no, it never is. we work hard, take two steps, take three steps. but this is certainly a step forward. this bill is about jobs, mr. president. this is a will about jobs, about

small business, about the environment as well. and we will see immediate reductions in fuel usage, carbon emissions and air pollution. our constituents from the major business organizations to labor to the sierra club are supporting this effort. not only our car makers interested in this as i have said already, but the people who work in the offices, engineers, designers, the clerks, office managers, salespeople, mechanics, the car washers, printers, 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 want to thank the bill

sponsoring the house, congressman sutton who introduced the first bill and worked so hard and introduced the bill finally passed. i want to thank all of those that work 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. and on behalf of the auto dealers marchant 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 the opportunity for a short-term stimulus. this is a matter of a few months. it's less than 1% of this entire bill which is an important bill for the country, defense, the troops. this is a small piece of what is

but for small business people, and americans working hard every day across this country and it is a chance to help. mr. president, i hope we will. thank you. the senate voted 60 - 36 to keep the $1 billion for the so-called cash for clunkers program and the war spending bill.

syndicated columnist george will was the guest on washington journal thursday morning. this is one hour. >> host: and on this thursday morning washington journal is pleased to welcome columnist george will to spend the last hour with us. thanks for being here. >> guest: glad to be here. >> host: so much to talk about i thought i would start with your column. the column appears in "the washington post" newspapers around the nation on sundays and thursdays and the topic today is tobacco. why did you choose tobacco and

what is you're point? >> guest: i've written a lot about it over the years because it is a fascinating ethical and legal problems because we are trying in to deal with a product that is legal and deadly if used as intended to be used, so it is curious we try to regulate advertising again we are regulating truthful communication of information about a legal product so it raises all kind of problems. it seems to me one of the great successes of government the last 50 years is the fact that 50 years ago half the adult american population will up and lit cigarette. today 25% smoke. that is a tremendous good thing. arguably the most efficient thing the government does in this middle class information on acquiring country is communicate public health information, cholesterol, blood pressure, it's tremendous public health benefits. but what caught my attention was congress passes this bill and

how wering federal drug administration to regulate tobacco and the president comes out of the rose garden and says this is a change. this is not the way washington used work. it's exactly the way washington used to work from to particular spirit the bill was supported by philip morris, the largest tobacco company. why? help morrison knows by restricting advertising it restricts the measures the advertising promotions by which its market dominance could be challenged so again, it is what used to be called regulatory capturing and industry delighted to be regulated because it freezes the and bandages. second, the bill goes out of its way to say the fact the fda will be regulating tobacco does not immunize the tobacco companies against liability for damage done by the product. that is simply protecting another strong battalion in washington.

>> host: you also in the irony is abound about the state children's health insurance program being supported by tobacco taxes. >> guest: all over the country state governments are increasingly addicted i would use the word intentionally to tobacco taxes therefore they have a difficult problem they have to price the pack of tobacco most of which nowadays the vast majority in most states is taxes. they have to price it so as to not discourage too much smoking because if they discourage too much smoking there goes there revenue source. you cannot let the tobacco companies unless the tobacco companies have lewd to be limited and that is why in 1998i believe it was 46 states came to a compact with the tobacco companies to get i think $246 billion over 25 years. they have to make sure there's a continuing supply of smokers to keep the revenue flowing, and

the irony is compounded with schip, the state children's health insurance program being funded by smoking which is to say in order to fund this suppose it health care improvement we need to have a continually health damaging habit of smoking flourishing in the country. >> mr. will as much on his mind and we have opportunities to see and hear from him so we would like to open the phone lines for your calls, comments and questions 202-737-0001 for republicans, 202-737-0002 for democrats, and the line for independent, 202-628-0205. i am sure you have seen yesterday afternoon and in this morning's papers two new polls on the president's performance and popularity the cbs and also will street journal poll in a not shell both of them have similar results popular president and strong marks for his leadership and communication

style rising concerns about the programmatic approaches to the financial crisis. you can either comment on the polls or tell people you think of his performance. >> first the retial once again the american people are sensitive which is to say the president is an engaging, attractive, intelligent, bold interesting man fresh from winning and in fact vote from the american people. and what he is doing bulkeley and intelligently is taking the country in a direction the country is queasy about coming enormous expansion of government into the private sector. in fact erasing the distinction between public and private sectors. so the country is simply sensible about this. during the reagan presidency democrats were driven mad by the fact they would say what you think of reagan on this and this and the country was a little bit queasy about his policies and

never the less like reagan so this is not a new phenomenon. >> host: our phones are ringing off the hook so rather than questions from me let you but the audience wants to ask. we will begin with wilmington north carolina and this is t. ai, is that correct? you're on the air,. you are going to hear the air unless you hit the mute button on your tv. what is your question for george will? >> caller: i'm one of your fans down here. a few years ago you wrote an article about what you essentially thought of colin powell, and you took him apart, and was so good to see that. it was everything he had done wrong and i would like you to comment on that, please. >> i don't frankly remember the particular column. i remember having a distinct difference on the subject of israel and the middle east. colin powell is just now engaged

in a robust argument about the future of the republican party and i think colin powell is some room the republicans should have in their party as a matter of enormous distinction in the achievement and a strong feelings. i am much more conservative republican than he is but i am i guess what they call a big ten republican. i might say with regard to wilmington, wilmington before michael jordan became the most famous export from wilmington, the most famous one was my former colleague and missed friend david. >> host: also the place for the reason the government chose to test the vigil transition. speaking of colin powell's policy in the middle east you wrote a strong column about the speech in cairo. would you tell people your concerns with what he said? >> guest: the concern is all

presidents but particularly this one tend to think the personality is an irresistible force and there are a lot in movable objects that are all going to find irresistible. the president occasionally echoes a theme heard in this country in the 1930's which was if we could just talk, just get to know one another we could split differences between us and harmony would break out. this is the old liberal believe that harmony is the natural condition of man. i tend to be more like hobbes, the natural condition of man is a solitary british and short because people don't get along naturally. that is socializing people to get along is difficult. and the 1930's when we finally got to know the empire of japan and the right we knew we had what was called an irrepressible conflict on our hands so i thought his view was optimistic,

and i thought the comparison of and therefore is released to slave masters was observed and on historical. >> host: do you applaud the effort or think he should not have made it? >> guest: i am all for the effort now in its 60th year to get the palestinians and israelis together. i do think that there is a danger that when you get a peace process going the process becomes an end of itself, and we would do almost anything to keep the process going. the process is supposed to be the means to an end. >> host: chicago, you are on. good morning, sir. caulkett morning, how are you doing this morning. >> host: fine, what is on your mind? >> caller: primero lee we were talking about big tobacco and i see that we have depressed to international issue --

>> host: it is free discussion because mr. will writes about so many topics, so what is on your mind? >> caller: primero i am talking but the big tobacco issue and from my experience and from historic kleeb mr. will's position on the subject of big tobacco it seems okay, they're seems to be a problem and the proposed regulation of tobacco by numerous agencies or an agency giving dominance over the other agencies in the federal government to regulate the tobacco i look at it as something have to be done in that area in order to curb the abuse being the general american public suffers from and mr. will doesn't see that as a positive step what proposals to you have?

we know this is an issue that has been adversely affecting the american public. now, it seems in the united states if there is a product that adversity affect to help the general public such as illegal drugs or marijuana or something of that nature it is regulated, there is an enforcement agency and we know that for years the american public is being adversely affected by tobacco. >> guest: he used an interesting word about the abuse of this product and what makes it fascinating, atakapa lucey is you don't have to send you idea is to be affected if used as intended they are on healthy. now, unquestionably the have a big public health consequences so arguably do cheeseburgers.

the question is do we want the government regulating things their body regulating us for our own good? there is a limit to which paternalism, the nanny state of to be on least. that isn't to say all of this regulation is wrong. i'm just saying flags all to go up when we talk out the problem of the government in pinging upon some of our libertarians and some of these. >> host: the next question is harris, maryland. independent line, you are on for george will. >> caller: good morning, george. my name is john and i am from maryland. but i agree with you on the fact that mr. brinkley was a good man and i am from north carolina, and i read your articles every

day when i am going to get the washington post. president obama -- i want to know what you're take on him getting a good speech in cairo and then, you know, the people critiquing him the way they do. he is trying to set up a new type of relationships in the middle east and as we all know the middle east is controlled by the desire and i would like to know your take on that. >> guest: what worries me about the president's approach to the dispute is it seems to me on historical and unworthy of the united states to try to position itself as a so-called honest broker above the fray. brokering the differences between israel, a member nation

of the united nations, and the forces, hamas and all the rest, who want to destroy israel. because israel is a salient of our values and an hospitable neighborhood it seems to me the united states isn't merely a disinterested arbiter between the two parties. the united states is an ally of israel. many rewards from its association with israel. >> host: as we are jumping around we are talking about policy in the middle east. what are your observations about what is going on in iran and the administration's approach so far? >> guest: it's thrilling and what is telling and interesting is in the run-up to the election, tweetering, i don't know -- tweeting was important. when the ayatollah khamenei can back in 1979 he was using cassette tapes, symbol audio

cassettes were an instrument of the revolution. the world moves. 30 years later, we have the internet, salles phones, satellite dishes, all of this. tyrannies have always depended in the modern age on establishing intellectual, sealing the population from outside influences. socializing, nationalizing if you will consciousness of the people. it is impossible these days, simply impossible. furthermore, the median age in iran is 25. half the country is under 25-years-old they are not going to be governed indefinitely by medieval clerics. just not going to happen so what we are seeing is something akin to what happened in the philippines when marcos called an election under intense pressure from ronald reagan and his on foley from nevada. they had the election it was

obviously fraudulent. people went in the streets and four days later he was gone. this will take longer than that. but the fact regime change is coming to iran is it seems to me obvious. >> host: we had an interesting hour this morning with a woman that route reading malida in tehran and one of the callers talked about the iran and oil industry and how much chinese interests there were and the geopolitics of china's presence in iran. >> guest: china being a member of the security council and having these close commercial relations with iran, this is one reason why we are never going to get in my judgment meaningful sanctions to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. so the good news i have just given, regime change is coming to iran. the bad news is the regime, whenever it is will four or five

years have nuclear weapons and we will have to learn how to detour iran until internal evolution of the society makes it a pacific condemnation. no one would care if belgium got nuclear weapons because the belgians are happy, cheerful, peaceful people. >> host: we are spending an hour with george will this morning. he's a fan of baseball and has written to topics on it. we are throwing pitches and he's taking swings. let's take the next from maryland, kevin on the republican line, good morning kevin. qalqilya pleased to be on. this is my first time on in many years. i have first a quick comment. i respect your opinion. i think you're one of the intellectuals left in the industry that comes with a quality perspective and data with the things you say. here is my concern. i think we have come up with our

own idea of running the country. during the bush administration we are out promoting democracy with weapons and now that we have an african-american president in office, this underlying disparity in the country has manifested itself and i see a problem, kind of a lot dichotomy but the majority of the crimes that have taken the country down have been done by executives being predominantly white executives who were still out and trying to promote democracy in other countries and not taking care of our own business so my question simply is to we need to take another look how we are at governing ourselves and i will hang up and listen off the air. thank you. >> guest: the short answer is yes, i think we were guilty of overreaching in the foreign policy and in the bushrs