and if people to want bring back the cash for clunker bill, they can do that. they can do it as a free-standing bill, and hopefully they can do it by paying for it, because that's the way it should be done. because there's another rule around here it violates which is the pay-go rule. so this amendment, this motion to waive is going to be the first test of this congress on two very critical issues. well, three really. first, are we going to do something about the debt of this nation? are we going to start paying for new programs which we know are politically attractive -- every auto dealer in america wants this language included in this bill -- but are we going to pay for it, as we should. secondly, are we going to live by the rules that were put in place by the democratic leadership under the honest leadership and open government snact andact? and thirdly, are we going to live by the statement made by the president of the united states, surrounded by the democratic leadership of this gross the day this bill was paid, that pay-go will be the new way that we enfo

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 was not in the bill. is he saying that the democratic leadership is holding the funding of the troops hostage to spend $1 billion on an extraneous program which creates virtually no environmental improvement in our fleet? it is simply part of the economic effort to revive the auto industry. we've already spent $183 billion on that by the way -- on its, by the way. are they saying they will not fund the troops of the ticket -- if we take it out. it is designed specifically to address this type of situation. the conference is truly abused relative to finding and spending money which we do not have. that i find to be -- i do not believe that is realistic. i do not believe that the democratic membership in the house is going to vote against this bill if the cash for clunkers languages taking out -- language is taken out. in addition, of course, there is the fact that paygo is being violated here. there is the great irony th

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 democr

such as the clash for clunkers bill. this group led by dianne feinstein, they see it as another handout. they say the increases don't even make up for carbon emissions coming from production-quality vehicles. >> howl acted as president obama been in pushing congress to pass legislation? >> he has publicly, to support it several times. he has urged lawmakers to act. he has not necessarily weighed in publicly on which proposal, either the one backed by the commission led by industry or the one led by environmentalists. but the house version came out of a compromise in the energy and commerce committee. it was announced the same day after they met the white house with president obama. he has played a big part of that compromise. >> what will you watched more closely now as this legislation winds its way through the process this week and beyond? >> my eyes will be on what people they do it with. if it becomes part of the war supplemental, we are looking at how it will move. if it is a stand-alone provision, it will be clear

introduced a bill, the thought and goal of which was pretty sirm sill -- simple, that was to encourage people to purchase more efficient automobiles with a voucher. and that became known as cash for clunkers. this is something we'd worked on for a long time, some of us that did the cafe bill in the senate, thanks to senator inoue , it was added to the energy bill and we were able to achieve a 10 mile over 10 year improvement in fuel efficiency in automobiles. it was a big victory. because we began this in 1993 and hadn't been able to achieve any improvement in the cafe standards. the cash for clunkers bill, and i must say this, is a product of the house, is not based on improving fuel efficiency. it helps deter, prevent, diminish fuel efficiency. it really is in structure a bailout for the automobile industry. secondly there is no funding mechanism. senator collins and i had a funding mechanism which took it off of the stimulus. now, this goes right on the deficit. it's true in the bill it's reduced to four months, but it is a billion dollars. we strongly believe it doesn't make very good sense. let me give you a couple of reasons. first, it would allow a guzzler to be junked and a new gu

said earlier on that they were not going to have these supplemental spending bills come on a larger issue, beyond cash for clunkers. will we see any more of these types of. big catch all bills? that's got this is what they are saying, this is the last war funding bill -- guest: this is what they are saying, this is the last war funding bill. it would be very shy to say this is the last catch-all large spending bill in congress, because that is kind of what congress does. host: why is congress reluctant to take something, like the cash for clunkers bill, and debated as a separate spending issue? guest: i do not think in that case it was the instance. i think there was pretty much widespread support, despite some of the concerns of those on the left and fiscal conservatives. i think what they were trying to do here is gain support for the wider war funding bill, and there were controversial aspect of that bill. i think part of that was adding on to this to win support for that. he and also this being the last catchall spending bill for a while, they need to allocate the funding, and they wanted to get this thing goi

there's been a lot of discussion on the premise that the conferees did not pay for the cash for clunkers bill. mr. president, technically, that is correct. but i believe my colleagues should be advised that under the congressional budget office, the c.b.o. scoring, the conferees are scored with a savings of $1.47 billion in discretionary spending in this bill. in title 14 of the bill, the conferees included a provision which mandates that more than $1 billion in discretionary spending in rescissions shall be allocated as savings to the bill not used as an offset. while the conferees were required to designate the cash for clunkers title as an emergency for technical reasons, it is also true that we included $1 billion offset in discretionary spending for all practical purpose offsets the spending for cash for clunkers. so while much of the debate about this matter involves the fact the condition frees did not pay for this provision, that is not completely cut, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to include in the record the last page of the score-keeping document of the appropriations comm

the cash for clunkers bill, and mu

contains money for international monetary fund, pandemic flu response, and the so-called cash for clunkers bill. this is about an hour and 25 minutes. >> isn't it wonderful, we've spent $600 million on a new visitor's center and we still don't have a room that's better to meet in a conference. what a wonderful use of resources and what a wonderful sense of planning went into that. having gotten rid of my frustration for day. i thought that would take a moment to manifest itself. let me simply say that we're here to deal with, in the form of a supplement with the last of the leftovers plus whatever other items that are being attached along the way. i'm willing to forego my opening statement in the hope that others will do the same so that we can get right to the business. so having said that, let me call on senator innoy first and then mr. lieu yiss and mr. cock ran and see how far we can go and how fast we can get there. >> mr. chairman, i thank you very much. i agree but that we've gone over the words long enough, it's time for work. this is a compromise package that both sides have worked on.

now, -- clunker bill. i have -- purchasing automobiles that are high-mileage vehicles that use a lot of gas and exchanging them for lower-mileage vehicles in order to accomplish some environmental protections. i would simply note this, however. that this bill that was airdropped into this doesn't accomplish that. basically this is a bill that was drafted in the house about the input -- without the input of the senate. there was a much better bill near the senate. senator feinstein, senator collins had it, which would have meant some mileage differential would have occurred but it was not allowed to be put in because the bill, as it was put into the conference report, was unamendable. and so the bill itself is flawed because it basically only allows -- it all

are they likely to take advantage of this passage of this bill and drive advertising along the cash for clunkers program or is this something the federal government will promote? >> guest: there's no money but i'm aware of to spent on promotion. i wouldn't be surprised if gm and others with such a huge success pledging to revive the car if someone lost their job. i think they will take anything right now to deal to drive sales. >> host: one more call, india, john good morning independent line. >> caller: good morning, a quick question. is their anything in the bill that prevents the auto dealers from regulating the price from 3500 or 4500? that is one of my concerns of the are going to take advantage instead of saving money getting a good deal they are going to make more money off of it. >> guest: there is language in the bill tightly controlling the activities with the auto dealers are required and not required to do. i don't -- it's a long bill and i haven't read every word i must confess i'm comfortable there is going to be restrictions to increase the sticker price. >> now that the bill has

clunkers may make sense, if it's paid for. well, the way it was structured it can't be paid for. you cannot amend this bill in its present form. and, therefore, if it passes with the cash for clunkers in it $1 billion price tag in it, we basically pass that debt on to our children. so i will, at the appropriate time, offer an amendment which will essentially be a pay-go amendment, that will be a point of order that says essentially -- not under pay-go because if i did that it might bring the whole bill down and i have in interest in doing that -- it will be a targeted point of order that essentially will be a pay-go point of order. anyone voting against this point of order will be voting against pay-go which will say that this language which is unpaid for, this $1 billion, should not stay in this bill in this form. does that mean the bill goes down? no. they will hear a lot of moaning and groaning that it will destroy the bill. no, it won't. no, it won't. this bill can be sent back to the house and passed without cash for clunker language in it, unpaid for. or it can be sent back to the house and they can

bill. for consumers, it means a chance to get rid of the gas gudsing clunker and receive a voucher up to $4,500 to get a new, more fuel efficient car, the better the gas mileage, the high they are subsidy. for the environment, it means a win with every new sale. every car or truck sold under this program will be more fuel efficient or cleaner than the car or truck it replaces. i appreciate the work of representative sutton and my other colleagues on the committee for this legislation. i want to abbling knowledge their efforts on behalf of the american auto industry and american auto workers. this legislation was an amendment added to the aces energy bill passed by our committee by a strong bipartisan 50 to 4 vote. i ask my colleagues to vote yes, yes for the economic benefits of the bill, yes for the benefits to consumers, and yes for the improvements in environmental quality. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i would like to yield two minutes to one of the co-

bill. cash for clunkers and bunkers in the same bill. cash for more war in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. cash to help china sell its cars to americans. meanwhile, back in the u.s. of a, factories and dealers are closing. people are losing their jobs, their businesses, their homes, their retirement security. who are these people who are coming up with these innovative ideas to keep wars going and to move jobs out of america? who are these people? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. blunt: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, republicans are eager for this discussion, this debate on health care to move forward. we are eager to talk about health care in committee, on the floor, at hearings, at news conferences, wherever people want to talk about a health care system that ensures more quality, wides

the bill also includes funding for the cash for clunkers. that is giving discounts for american to trade in their cars for more fuel-efficient vehicles. this is about one hour. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield myself one minute the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. m@@@@@@áwa%", we have to make time for the military authorization bill. the gentleman from wisconsin deserves to be heard. the speaker is not going to miss much. the gentleman may proceed. as i was about to say, i think we should get on with it. the sooner we get on with it, the sooner we can get on with this year's business. >> members please take a conversation off the floor. >> thank you. i am very pleased that we are returning to rhetoric -- regular order. i must confess that i have been disappointed at the turn this on a product has taken in recent days as compared to where we and originally began with ever built. the majority has chosen to go to the high dollar level for every account in this conference report except as it

further, the bill includes $1 billion of new spending for what we have been calling cash for clunkers on the floor. that amount was not in the bill as it passed the house either. now, let me shift gears and briefly explain the motion before us. it's a straightforward motion that insists on the house funding levels of $84.5 billion for the defense and military construction portions of the supplemental. further, it also insists on the lower top line for overall funding levels of $91.3 billion contained in the senate passed bill for the entire supplemental. further, it requires the text of the conference agreement be available in an electronic, downloadable and searchable form for 48 hours prior to consideration by the house. this language is identical to the motion unanimously adopted and subsequently ignored by my friends in the majority when considering the mass -- our massive stimulus bill. finally, this motion insists on the senate position regarding prohibition on the release of detainee photos sponsored by senator graham and lieberman. clearly, the focus of this supplemental fundi

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 ye

the cash for clunkers provision has no place on a bill that provides emergency war funds. mr. president, i couldn't agree with the citizens against government waste more. "the wall street journal" wrote in a june 11, 2009 editorial -- quote -- "congress wants to pay you to destroy your car. as economic policy this is dotty. it encourages americans to needlessly destroy still useful cars and misallocate scrace resources from another perhaps more productive uses in order to subsidize replacement. by the same logic, we could revise the housing market by paying everyone to burn down their house houses to collect te insurance money and build new ones." what this is all about, it's really intended to help detroit out of recession by subsidizing new car purchases. maybe that's why the president's c.e.o. alliance of the automobile manufacturers wrote asking all senators to support this program as well as the united autoworkers legislative director who called this provision -- quote -- "the single most important step congress can take right now to assist the auto industry." haven't con

clunkers. i just read the details on the bill before the national transportation board gets hold of it. they are totally ineffective. i doubt that they get even 50,000 cars because you almost can i get a car. i just bought a 2009 morano. i have a 1996 lumina the gets lousy mileage for guests in this country did in but i do not qualify because i bought my car before july 1. this legislation is so per- business. i think his more conservative than bush. i made big money under bush. my pocketbook has been effective. i must have missed about $12,000 that i thought i was going to qualify for. host: when did you buy your car? caller: i just bought its in may. host: thanks for your call. a number of calls concerning the withdrawals of troops from iraq. the date was established come up being tomorrow, june 30. it was established in a secure pact approved last year. it sets the deadline also for the complete withdrawal at the end of 2011. iraqi officials have hailed it as a victory against insurgents. one more story on iraq. this is a story from "usa today." u.s. forces snubbed by iraqi forces. t

there is a bill in the house today or tonight, called fleet monitorization. more widely known as cash clunkers, that's a $4 million program that has passed. host: what would it do? guest: it would provide $4,500 for vouchers for turning in less fuel efficient vehicles for newer vehicles that are safer and cleaner and more fuel efficient. those vouchers i think would be a big incentive for consumers to come back to the marketplace. host: it's $4,500 from the government on top of anything? guest: that's right. host: you may get trade-ins? guest: on the clunkers part, if it's an older vehicle, the value of that older vehicle would be turned in. and there are incentives that manufacturers are providing for new buyers. and again the choices are incredible now. host: david is with us and we have our first caller. caller: how are you doing, thank you for taking my call. i have two questions, like with all the closings of the factories and plants. are the prices going to come from [inaudible] down to the united states at a cheaper price? guest: i didn't hear. host: will the cars come from china in a c

clunkers. in the editorial page here, two of your colleagues wrote specifically about the house version of this billthey say the bill undermined fuel efficiency standards. the house bill would subsidize the purchase of a new hummer, or new ram. it talks about a companion bill in the senate which they say is better. but the bill being pushed for the auto industry is bad policy. it's as these bills are expertly designed to provide it detroit one last windfall to sell off gas-guzzlers' currently sitting on dealer lots. guest: nothing is perfect, right? my bill would have been a little different. but you must work with your colleagues. the bill that we passed in my committee the do you know the committee well in terms of a balance between democrats and republicans. 50-4. then, on the house floor, an amendment, better than a two- thirds vote -- a hummer -- one of the provisions was that your car has to have worse than 18 miles per gallon. as we think about hummers, most of those would use the head as a stereotype and gets less than 80 miles per gallon but the new car or a police car has to be at least fo

but the longer the bill stayed in negotiations the more things got added to it. another thing was a cash for clunkers program. this is $1 billion to encourage people to trade old cars for fuel efficient vehicles. there are military airplanes and stryker vehicles and other ground vehicles that were not requested by the administration. these have bipartisan support but at the same time republicans are sure to be upset that the top line of the bill is a lot more than was originally anticipated. >> what is that top line? what is the tally so far? >> well, that's the $64,000 question. the request was about $84 billion. various versions of the bill came about $91 billion and $97 billion. the total could be $100 billion or $105 billion. >> josh rogin of "congressional quearltly" on the supplemental war spending bill. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> and when the house gavels back in a vote on a republican motion to go to conference on that war spending bill. having some problems in the electronic voting system. we'll have live coverage when they gavel back in. also today a bill on the u.s. aid to

there is a bill that will be taken up in the house today, later tonight, called a fleet modernization. more widely known as cash for clunkers. nearly $4 billion incentive program that passed the committee-wide margins. host: what would it do? guest: incentive up to $4,500 for the vouchers for turning in older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. less than 18 miles a gallon -- for new vehicles, but certainly safer and cleaner. they will be a big incentives for people to come back to the market. 45 host: hundred on top of anything? on top of what you make it trade and? guest: on the clunker's part, if it is an older vehicle, the value of the vehicle would be turned into. but there are also other incentives that manufacturers are providing for new buyers. again, the choices are incredible right now. host: dave mccurdy here until 9:30 a.m. eastern. caller: thank you critic michael. two questions, i want to know with all of the closings of factories and plants, are the parts going to come from china now to the united states at a cheaper price? host: plant-closing is, of the cars coming from china at a cheaper price? guest: the chinese

passed through the senate and house a bill that was supposed to be for afghanistan and iraq at a close to $3 billion or $4 billion goes to come from -- close to clunkers. what does that have to do with iraq and afghanistan? nothing, it has everything to do with special interests. i'm very worried about the economic impact of this spending on the future of america. it is my great concern and, frankly, our national security around the world, whether it be north korea, iran, relations with russia. there are many challenges. >> richard is annika -- host: richard is on the phone from newport. caller: i would like to ask a couple of things, really, but first, when are you going to stand up as a conservative, get some cuts in the republican party of there and stand up to these stupid people for wasting your money up there? and second,ç when are you going to pass a bill that at the end of your first term you do not get a full retirement or whatever you have been getting up there while the rest of those people out here have to work 30, 40 years just to get half of what we were getting when we were paid? guest: richard, i have been standing up and i would be g

through the senate and the house a bill that was supposed to be for afghanistan and iraq, had a billion dollar and it's closer to 3 or 4 billion dollar cash for clunkers. what does that have to do with iraq and afghanistan? nothing. it has everything to do with the special interests. and so i'm very worried about the economic impact of this spending on the future of america. that's my great concern and, frankly, our national security around the world whether it be north korea, iran, registrations with russia -- relations with russia, in our own hemisphere, there's many challenges. >> host: we'll get to those issues in a moment. richard is on the phone from newport, north carolina. good morning, richard. >> caller: good morning, sir. thank you, senator mccabe, for your -- mccain, for your service. i would like to ask one thing -- a couple things, really, but first, when are you going to stand up as a conservative, get some guts in a republican party up there and stand up to these stupid people for wasting our money up there? and second, when are you going to pass a bill that at the end of your first term you don't get a full retirement or whatever you'

clunkers, i frankly agree with senator feinstein on the nature of that program. but we have a huge amount of unfinished business in front of us. we've got 12 appropriation bills that both chambers would like to finnish regular order, in regular time. we've got health care that we hope to deal with to finally put to bed an issue which has plagued us since the 1940's. we've got climate change legislation which we need to deal with. we've got financial systems reform. and this bill represents the

there is a bill that is going to be taken up in the house today or later tonight on gum called fleet modernization. more widely known as cash for clunkers. that is a nearly $4 billion in incentive program that passed the committee with wide margins. >> host: what would it do? >> guest: it would provide an incentive up to $4,500 for the vouchers for turning in the older, less fuel-efficient vehicles, let's clean vehicles that are less than 18 miles per gallon for newer vehicles that are certainly safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient. those doctors i think would be a big incentive for consumers to come back in the marketplace. >> host: that is 45 vendor dollars from the government on top of anything? >> guest: >> host: on top of a trade in? >> guest: on the clunkers park, if it is an older vehicle the value of that older vehicle would be turned in, so but there are also other incentives that manufacturers are providing for new buyers and again, the choices are incredible right now. >> host: david purdie-- mccurdy. mark on our democrat line, go ahead. >> caller: how are you doing? thanks for taking my call. i have two questions for mr. m

bill has begun eight -- has became a means to provide financial aid for bailouts. if that is not bad enough, the conference agreement also includes $1 billion in emergency spending for the cash for clunkers program that was not part of either of the house or senate packages. nor was it requested by the president. i'm understand the conferees have dropped at the graham- lieberman-mccain language relating to the detainee photos. they also have watered down language for detainee's at guantanamo bay. this is an issue that is, and will continue to be, of great concern to many of us as well as the american people. just last week, the president approved having a guantanamo detainee transferred to new york city, it ordered the release and transfer of four uighers to bermuda. the president appears to be releasing detainee's to their new homes before congress can act substantially. mr. young, mr. granger, and i offered several amendments. the first offer by mr. granger prohibited the release of detainee photos. the second a motion offered by mr. young had funding for dod and milcon spending. the third motion of the senate bill prohibited the transfer or release of guantanamo detainees. all three a