[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 122 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8946-S8967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOR THE 
            CONSUMER ASSISTANCE TO RECYCLE AND SAVE PROGRAM

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3435, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3435) making supplemental appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and 
     Save Program.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: What is the order 
of business right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Certain amendments are in order to be offered 
to the bill, with a 30-minute time limit.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thirty-minute time limit on?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2300

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment. I believe it is at 
the desk. If not, I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2300.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To limit the provision of vouchers to individuals with 
adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000 or joint filers with adjust 
                  gross incomes of less than $75,000)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1302(c)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32; 123 Stat. 1910; 
     49 U.S.C. 32901 note) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(H) Eligible individuals.--A voucher may only be issued 
     under the Program in connection with the purchase of a new 
     fuel efficient automobile by an individual--
       ``(i) who filed a return of Federal income tax for a 
     taxable year beginning in 2008, and, if married for the 
     taxable year concerned (as determined under section 7703 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), filed a joint return;
       ``(ii) who is not an individual with respect to whom a 
     deduction under section 151 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable year 
     beginning in the calendar year in which the individual's 
     taxable year begins; and
       ``(iii) whose adjusted gross income reported in the most 
     recent return described in clause (i) was not more than 
     $50,000 ($75,000 in the case of a joint tax return or a 
     return filed by a head of household (as defined in section 
     2(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)).''.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 7 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and notwithstanding the 
     requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate final 
     regulations that require--
       (1) each purchaser or leaser of a new fuel efficient 
     automobile under the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save 
     Program established under section 1302(a) of such Act (Public 
     Law 111-32; 123 Stat. 1909; 49 U.S.C. 32901 note) to affirm 
     on a standard form, determined by the Secretary, that such 
     purchaser or leaser is an individual described by section 
     1302(c)(1)(H) of such Act, as added by subsection (a); and
       (2) each dealer that receives a form described in paragraph 
     (1) under such program to submit such form to the Secretary.
       (c) Fraud Detection.--Upon receipt under paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (b) of a form described in paragraph (1) of such 
     subsection, the Secretary shall submit such form to the 
     Internal Revenue Service to determine whether the purchaser 
     or leaser has violated section 641 of title 18, United States 
     Code.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Car Allowance Rebate Program, or the 
cash for clunkers as everyone knows it, has been very popular with the 
American people, there is no doubt about it, the way it has been used. 
It has been a shot in the arm for the auto industry and our dealers at 
a very critical time. But I believe the program should be strengthened, 
and I think we should seize this supplemental time as an opportunity to 
do just that.
  When this program was first authorized last year and we put this into 
effect, at that time I made the observation, which I will repeat here 
today, that, why would we want to give $4,500 to the President of the 
United States, who makes $400,000 a year, so he can buy a new car? Why 
would we want to give a Member of the Senate, who makes $172,000 a 
year, $4,500 to buy a new car? Quite frankly, we can afford to buy a 
new car.
  But how about the rest of the American people out there, those who 
are making $30,000 a year, just above the minimum wage or $35,000 a 
year or $40,000 a year? How about them? What do they get out of this? 
Well, they can get $4,500 to buy a new car too. Someone who is making 
$35,000 a year probably does not have health insurance either. They 
probably have some old clunker made back in the 1990s or 1980s they are 
still driving that they are paying a lot for because it is a gas 
guzzler and they are paying a lot to get it repaired because they 
cannot afford to buy a new car. If you give them $4,500, many still 
cannot buy a new car.
  So I argued at that time, when we did this, that we ought to put an 
income limit on it. That way, if you put an income limit on it, then 
the amount of money we are appropriating--that is what we are doing, by 
the way, spending taxpayers' money; we are putting this money out 
there--then that amount of money goes to a smaller subset of people, 
those who are low and moderate income. If you do that, then you can 
afford to give them a little bit more money. So someone making $35,000, 
$30,000, $40,000 a year might be able to get not $4,500 but maybe 
$7,500, maybe $8,000. Someone in that income category, then, could go 
out and buy a new car because they could get a loan, say, if they are 
buying a $16,000 or $17,000 car, and that is what new cars are selling 
for, at least some of the more modest automobiles. Some of the more 
modest automobiles cost around $14,000, $16,000, $17,000. So if they 
got more money, that means they could get a loan for 50 percent of the 
price. They probably could not get a loan for 75 percent or 80 percent 
of the price because they simply do not have that much credit. But they 
could get a loan for maybe half of the price of a car because, 
obviously, when they drove it away, the value of the car would still be 
more than that.

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

[[Page S8947]]

gross income of less than $75,000. So if you have an adjusted gross 
income as a single person of less than $50,000, you can participate; if 
you are a family, with less than $75,000 in adjusted gross income, you 
can participate.
  Again, what I don't have in this amendment is increasing the amount 
of money.
  So that is the thrust of this amendment. I know the program has been 
very successful. The first $1 billion was rapidly exhausted. I assume 
the second $2 billion we are going to be voting on would do the same. 
To my way of thinking, let's get a couple of bangs for the buck. Let's 
not only stimulate our economy by getting a lot of those cars off the 
lot and giving a shot in the arm to the auto industry, but let's help 
some people who really need some help: lower income, moderate-income 
individuals, and families who, even if you give them $4,500, can't 
afford to buy that new car. So, to me, that is what we ought to do. We 
ought to ensure that we get the maximum economic stimulus for every 
dollar we spend.
  If we are going to give a lot of money to people who make $150,000 or 
$200,000 a year, or whatever--there is no income limit on the bill 
now--I am not certain that is a lot of economic stimulus. I might like 
it. I could probably take my car--I forget what year my car is, early 
2000--I could take it in and get a new car, and I would get $4,500. But 
is that fair? Is that fair to someone of my status who makes--let's 
face it, I make $172,000 a year. Is it fair that I should get $4,500 to 
go out and buy a new car? I just don't think that is fair. I don't 
think it is right. But I think it would be right for someone making 
less than $50,000 a year because they are the ones who need the help. 
They need some economic stimulus also.
  The higher the income of the person, the more likely they are to buy 
a new car without the rebate and in many cases would do that. Maybe it 
would not happen this month. But it may very well happen in the months 
to come.
  By only providing money to those who are less likely to buy a car 
without the government benefit, we have a more efficient use of 
government dollars.
  For the modest income family with an old gas guzzler, they are paying 
more for gas, they are paying more for repairs because they can afford 
to repair the car but they can't afford to get a new car, so they are 
stuck. They really need the help. I always thought cash for clunkers 
was a great idea--I still do, if it was targeted--if it was targeted 
and you gave lower and moderate-income people enough money to go out 
and do this.
  So I think the $1 billion before, and now the $2 billion--so $3 
billion--I think could have been much better spent by targeting it to 
low-income people and giving them the economic stimulus they need, so 
they will be saving money because they will be spending less on gas and 
they will be saving money because they are spending less on car 
repairs.
  People of modest means are the most likely to have a vehicle that is 
really old, that is really a gas guzzler. Again, in the absence of an 
incentive, they are going to stick with their old vehicle because they 
simply can't afford a new car. A $4,500 rebate obviously provides a 
powerful incentive. We have seen that. It works.
  I don't have any demographics. I don't have any data on who purchased 
these cars in regard to their income levels because there is no income 
guidelines on this, we don't really know who walked into the showrooms 
and bought these cars. We do know about half the cars were foreign 
cars. We do know that. Almost half were U.S. big three company cars. We 
do know that. But we just don't know what the incomes were, the 
economic status of the individuals or families who came in and 
purchased this new car.
  I will say that I have on a few occasions talked to individuals I 
know who are of modest income means to ask them if they were taking 
advantage of this, and in just a few instances that I have been able to 
tap into this--by no means is this any kind of a poll that would be 
accurate, but in just the few cases where I have asked, people have 
said: Well, you know, $4,500 is nice, but I don't have the rest of it. 
Quite frankly, my credit is not very good because I am up to here with 
credit cards, and I am not certain I can get the money together to buy 
that car. So, again, that is just a couple of instances. I wouldn't say 
that is generally true, but it gives me an indication there are a lot 
of people out there who would like to have a new car, who would like to 
have the wherewithal to do it but even with $4,500 would not be able 
to.
  So, again, that is what my amendment is. It is very simple. It just 
says right now that $50,000 per person, $75,000 per family. So think 
about it.
  Right now, an executive with a $1 million salary and a 10-year-old 
gas-guzzling second car--perhaps a Cadillac; that is their second car 
or their third car--they can walk right into the showroom and purchase 
a brand new Cadillac that gets an additional 8 miles per gallon. That 
executive making a million-dollar salary, we will give them a $4,500 
gift from the Federal Government.
  Is this what we want to do? I don't think so. I just don't think it 
is a wise use of the limited funding we have. It probably will 
stimulate the economy; sure. I have no doubt about that. But is it 
stimulating the economy for lower income people whom I think we also 
ought to be stimulating in terms of their economic situation too?
  So, again, that is the essence of the amendment. I think the program 
works. It is good, but it should be appropriately targeted to Americans 
of modest incomes and modest means. They tend to drive older vehicles. 
They need those cars to get to work, to take their kids to afterschool 
activities, to get to the doctors, and if they live in rural areas such 
as Iowa and places like that, they depend on that car for their life. 
So I think it makes good sense to offer a car purchase rebate. I am not 
opposed to the program. I think it works. But I just think it ought to 
be better targeted.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Iowa leaves the 
floor, if the Senator from Iowa has no further speakers on his 
amendment or wishes to speak any further, I am prepared on our behalf 
to yield all the time on our side if he would like to yield the time on 
his side so we can move the process on, and if the Senator would like 
to ask for the yeas and nays right now before I seek to offer my 
amendment, I am happy to stand by for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am not sure who is controlling time, but 
I wish to speak on the bill and on the amendment at the same time.
  Is there a time limit on the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a total of 30 minutes on the 
amendment, equally divided.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am asking a parliamentary inquiry: Is there a time limit 
on the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I wish to speak on the 
bill. I would ask, who is controlling time in opposition to the 
amendment? I wish to speak on the bill.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention that 
there is a mistake in drafting part of this amendment. Quite frankly, 
it does read that a voucher may only be issued under the program to an 
individual ``who filed a return of Federal income tax for taxable year 
beginning in 2008.''
  There are some low-income people who don't file income tax returns, 
so there is a little bit of a problem in the drafting. I still remain 
committed to somehow working this out. It now looks as though even some 
people who make just over the minimum wage would not be allowed to go 
in, and those are the people I am trying to get to more than anybody 
else, those who are making a very low income but probably don't file an 
income tax return because they are low income.
  I believe there are ways of getting over this. But the way the 
amendment is drafted, it can only go to an individual who filed a 
Federal income tax

[[Page S8948]]

return. That raises some troubling questions. I am also told that, 
under the agreement we have now, I cannot offer another amendment. In 
other words, amendments are now limited. I have a problem, because it 
is not what I intended to do. It is a drafting error. I apologize for 
that. I will continue to try to work on it and see if I can do 
something at some point. I remain committed to having an income cap on 
this program.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say 
that he raises a good point about his amendment. I don't think it would 
be a difficult matter to drop that provision, or modify that provision, 
so that it would not preclude someone who had not filed an income tax 
return from being eligible for this particular program.
  If the Senator wishes to modify his amendment to that effect, there 
would be no objection on our side. However, there would be objection to 
simply dropping the amendment, because too many people on our side are 
in agreement with the concept, and this is pursuant to a unanimous 
consent agreement.
  Again, if the Senator wishes to modify the amendment, there would be 
no objection to that, although we would want to see the language, 
obviously.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside my 
amendment and that we move on to other amendments. We will bring this 
amendment up later. I ask unanimous consent that the time we have be 
reserved and that we come back to this amendment after the others have 
been disposed of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 2301, As Modified

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2301, which is at 
the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bennett, Roberts, 
and Snowe be added as cosponsors, and I also ask that the amendment be 
modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself, Mr. 
     Bennett, Mr. Roberts, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2301, as modified.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. STATUS REPORT AND REIMBURSEMENT OF UNFUNDED 
                   OBLIGATIONS.

       The Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009 
     (title XIII of Public Law 111-32) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking ``November 1, 
     2009'' and inserting ``August 8, 2009'';
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Database.--The Secretary shall maintain, and update 
     each business day, a database that contains--
       ``(A) the vehicle identification numbers of--
       ``(i) all new fuel efficient vehicles purchased or leased 
     under the Program; and
       ``(ii) all eligible trade-in vehicles disposed of under the 
     Program; and
       ``(B) the amount of money--
       ``(i) obligated by the Federal Government for payment of 
     vouchers issued under the Program; and
       ``(ii) remaining to be obligated for such payments from the 
     amount appropriated for such purpose.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Supplemental report.--No amounts may be obligated for 
     the Program beyond the amounts appropriated under subsection 
     (j) until after the Secretary submits a report to the 
     committees referred to in paragraph (2) that--
       ``(A) evaluates the fuel efficiency standards of--
       ``(i) the eligible trade-in vehicles traded in under the 
     Program; and
       ``(ii) the new fuel efficient automobiles purchased under 
     the Program; and
       ``(B) details the administration of the Program, including 
     the method used by the Department of Transportation--
       ``(i) to track the amount obligated by the Federal 
     Government for payment of vouchers issued under the Program; 
     and
       ``(ii) to determine the amount of appropriated funds 
     remaining to be obligated under the Program.''; and
       (3) in subsection (j)--
       (A) by striking ``There is hereby appropriated'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) In general.--There is appropriated''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Reimbursement of unfunded transactions.--In addition 
     to the amount appropriated under paragraph (1), there shall 
     be made available for the Program, from amounts appropriated 
     under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
     (Public Law 111-5) for the Department of Transportation and 
     not otherwise obligated, an amount equal to the amount by 
     which the dollar value of all of the vouchers issued under 
     the Program during the period described in subsection 
     (c)(1)(A) exceeds $1,000,000,000.''.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when Congress rushed the so-called Cash for 
Clunkers Program to passage as part of the fiscal year 2009 
supplemental appropriations bill, it had little time to consider how 
the program would work. Although the program is well-intentioned, many 
have criticized its efficiency and questioned the ability of the 
Department of Transportation to manage its application.
  The program has only been running for a couple of weeks, but DOT is 
already saying the $1 billion appropriated for the program has likely 
been spent. But nobody really knows. Yet this bill would appropriate an 
additional $2 billion.
  My view is that before we jump to spend another $2 billion of 
taxpayers' hard-earned money, we need to call a time out--clear all of 
the transactions that qualify, see how much it costs, and evaluate how 
much more, if any, we want to spend. If we appropriate more, we 
certainly should establish a tracking system to know how much the 
government is committed to pay each day so that we will know when to 
cut the program off before we again run out of money. In short, this 
crash program must be properly restructured now if it is to be 
continued.
  There have been multiple complaints from dealers who have had trouble 
with the program. Some dealers haven't received their registration 
information, and some have had trouble accessing the system to submit 
transactions. This information is concerning because, if true, DOT 
presumably doesn't have an accurate count of how many transactions 
dealers have made compared to how much money is left in the Cash for 
Clunkers Program. In fact, it is my understanding that the National 
Automobile Dealers Association estimated that at least 200,000 deals 
have been completed but not yet successfully submitted to the 
Department of Transportation.
  The confusion at DOT is evident. On Thursday, July 30, less than 1 
week after DOT started to accept dealers' transactions, DOT told 
Congress that the program was suspended because the $1 billion had been 
exhausted. The next day, DOT said the program was not suspended and 
transactions could continue. On Sunday, August 2, Secretary LaHood was 
on C-SPAN's ``The Newsmakers'' and first stated that the entire $1 
billion hadn't been spent. However, later in the interview, he said 
that the administration would only honor deals made through Tuesday, 
August 4, unless the Senate approves this bill. He then said, in the 
same interview, that DOT estimates there is only enough money to cover 
deals made through this week. The process is anything but accurate. 
Dealers should not have to bear the risk that deals they made in good 
faith won't be honored.
  It is not only dealers who should be concerned about whether the 
government has accurate data needed to wind down the program before the 
funding runs out. Secretary LaHood recently said that the government 
will make ``a good-faith effort'' to reimburse all deals that are in 
the ``pipeline.'' But without appropriated money, he cannot make any 
commitment. Statements of the Secretary are not binding promises. 
Consumers are also entitled to certainty. That is why we need a timeout 
to assess where we are and redo the process to be fully transparent and 
accurate.
  Specifically, my amendment would terminate the program as of August 
7, 2009, at 11:59 p.m. to give a date certain to dealers and consumers 
to avoid any further confusion about whether all

[[Page S8949]]

dealer transactions will be honored. It would delay new funding for the 
Cash for Clunkers Program beyond the $1 billion already appropriated, 
except for such sums needed to meet all obligations through August 7 
that may exceed $1 billion, which would be paid for by using 
unobligated stimulus funding designated for DOT. This addresses the 
concern that some dealers will be on the hook for deals that have not 
cleared before the program runs out of money. DOT currently has no 
mechanism in place to efficiently cut off transactions once the 
appropriated threshold is reached.
  My amendment would require DOT to submit a detailed report to 
Congress, before any new appropriations are made, that evaluates the 
methodology it used to track the daily obligations incurred under the 
program versus reimbursements sent to the dealers. The reporting 
requirement would ensure that Congress can evaluate what changes have 
to be made to more efficiently disburse any future money allocated to 
the program and, importantly, be able to track the disbursements and 
obligations to ensure the latter do not exceed the funding available. 
To this end, my amendment would add a requirement that if future 
appropriations are made, DOT must track daily the number of 
transactions made and money left to be obligated for reimbursement to 
the dealers. Again, this would ensure that the DOT is working with the 
most up-to-date information so that no consumer or dealer would enter 
into a transaction if funding is already exhausted.
  Some have questioned whether the Cash for Clunkers Program is 
encouraging consumers to purchase or lease fuel-efficient vehicles. On 
June 11, two of my colleagues even submitted an opinion piece in the 
Wall Street Journal that indicated the Cash for Clunkers Program was 
``bad policy'' and ``would create handouts for Hummers.'' The report 
would also evaluate the fuel efficiency standards of the automobiles 
traded in and the new automobiles leased or purchased. Obviously, 
should we want to modify the terms of the legislation to meet some of 
the concerns expressed by the colleagues I mentioned, that could be 
done at that time.
  I am very familiar about what happens to program extensions that are 
rushed through without any oversight. In 2000, the Arizona State 
legislature passed a well-intentioned law, much like cash for clunkers, 
which provided a tax credit for purchasers to buy vehicles converted to 
run on propane or compressed natural gas. The program was originally 
estimated to cost $5 million. However, lawmakers continued the call for 
the expansion of the program based on consumer demand. Before long, 
that small $5 million pricetag ballooned up to a $600 million budget 
liability. It was stopped in time to avoid the State from bankrupting 
itself.
  I am concerned that we are putting American taxpayers in a similar 
position. If the additional $2 billion is simply appropriated for this 
program, will DOT come back to Congress in September and argue that we 
must extend the program yet again? Maybe there would have been more 
money committed than the $2 billion, as may be the situation now. 
Aren't we required to apply some metrics, in other words, to evaluate 
the benefits against the cost to taxpayers? I don't have to remind 
everybody how Congress views temporary programs. Former President 
Reagan used to describe them by saying, ``There's nothing more 
permanent than a temporary government program.'' That could well be the 
case here if we don't step back and evaluate the program, and if we 
don't ensure that any future funding for such a program is done in a 
more efficient manner than this particular program is today.
  As I said, auto dealers are hardly the only business that would be 
happy to receive government assistance. So evaluating it at this 
juncture is very important, lest we make the same mistake in the 
future.
  We rushed cash for clunkers once. I suggest that we should not make 
the same mistake again. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to support my 
amendment when the appropriate time comes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona controls 8 additional 
minutes, and there is 15 minutes in opposition.
  Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield time to my colleague.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kyl amendment. I 
remind my colleagues how this all happened. In June, the House ``air 
dropped'' $1 billion for a Cash for Clunkers Program into a conference 
report, which had nothing to do with clunkers, accompanying a $105 
billion war supplemental spending bill and sent it over to the Senate. 
Despite the fact that my colleagues on the other side had advocated a 
new rule in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in 2007 to 
allow a procedural vote to strip air drops from conference bills, when 
such a vote was presented, it was voted to keep this clunker of a 
provision.
  I hope one of my colleagues will propose a ``cash for golf clubs'' 
proposal. I have had many calls from people who have old golf clubs, 
and they would like to have cash for them. We know that it is an 
important national sport and it is an important part of our economy. I 
hope we will be taking up a ``cash for golf clubs'' provision pretty 
soon.
  We are spending $3 billion to subsidize car purchases, some of them 
from automotive companies we own. We own Chrysler and General Motors. 
We own them, and we are going to give them money. So maybe it will come 
back to us.
  The Wall Street Journal editorializes:

       This is crackpot economics. The subsidy won't add to net 
     national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one 
     taxpayer's pocket from somebody else's, and merely pays that 
     taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return 
     for something he might have bought anyway.

  Here we had it stuck into a supplemental appropriations bill that had 
nothing to do with automobiles. So now we find that people like free 
money. They like free money. Yes, we all like free money. So the 
program has gone out of control.
  We have no idea, as Senator Kyl has said, how much money is being 
spent, how much is being obligated. So rather than stop and see what 
the story is here, let's spend $2 billion more. At some point, this 
kind of thing has to stop. The national debt has climbed to $11.6 
trillion. If we are under the impression--if anybody is under the 
impression--it is going to be taken out of the stimulus package, the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the House 2 days ago said: 
Don't worry, we will add an additional $2 billion. Don't worry, it 
would not be taken out of the program that the money is there for; that 
money will be ``replenished.'' Do you know what replenishing means? It 
means $2 billion more of taxpayers' dollars. Everybody in Congress now 
is patting themselves on the back.
  The program has also been a success, I might add, for foreign auto 
manufacturers. Four of the five top-selling cars in the program are 
made by foreign automakers, according to the Department of 
Transportation, and a success for Citibank that managed the voucher 
program, which has received $45 billion in Federal aid, and, yes, for 
the 184,000 Americans who have received up to $4,500 toward the 
purchase of a new car, except for the other 290-some million who will 
not take advantage of this program who will be paying the bill.
  I urge adoption of the Kyl amendment. At least we should pause and 
see where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if nobody is seeking time in opposition, 
I suggest on this amendment that all time be yielded back, if the 
Senator from Arizona is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, at this time, I object. I think at some 
point we will be able to yield back much of the time, but at this time, 
we need to talk with our Members to make sure Members have had a chance 
to say their piece.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, would it be in order to ask for the yeas 
and nays, and when the time is yielded back, we can set the vote?

[[Page S8950]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order to ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 2302

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask further proceedings on this 
amendment be set aside and I be allowed to call up amendment No. 2302.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2302.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To protect the generations of tomorrow from paying for new 
                              cars today)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 BUDGET RESOLUTION.

       S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress) is amended--
       (1) in section 101--
       (A) in paragraph (2), strike the amount for fiscal year 
     2010 and insert ``$2,890,499,000,000'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) strike the amount for fiscal year 2011 and insert 
     ``$2,969,592,000,000''; and
       (ii) strike the amount for fiscal year 2012 and insert 
     ``$2,882,053,000,000''; and
       (2) in section 401(b), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2010, $1,085,285,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $1,307,200,000,000 in outlays;''.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, the senior Senator from Arizona alluded 
to the fact that basically this bill is unpaid for--$2 billion. There 
is a figleaf representation that the money in this bill is somehow 
being taken out of another account, and, therefore, it is offset--the 
account being the Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Program under the 
stimulus package. But that is a total fraud--a total fraud.
  This is the ultimate bait and switch because, as the senior Senator 
from Arizona pointed out, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
in the House, for whom I have a lot of respect and I think his 
forthrightness is refreshing, quite honestly, said on the floor of the 
House, when he was asked the question: What is going to happen to the 
fact that $2 billion has now been taken out of the Renewable Energy 
Loan Guarantee Program, what is going to happen to the loan guarantee 
program? Congressman Obey said:

       If the gentleman would yield, I share the gentleman's view 
     that the Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Program is of vital 
     importance to creating a new, green economy. We have talked 
     with the White House. We have talked with the Speaker and I 
     want to assure you--

  This is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee; when he assures 
you, you can be assured it is for sure--

     and I want to assure you that all of us certainly have every 
     intention of restoring these funds.

  They are doubling down on the debt. It is bad enough--this should be 
called the ``debt for clunkers'' bill to begin with because basically 
what we are doing is creating debt for our children. We are suggesting, 
we are proposing, we are allowing $4,500, $1 billion, now $3 billion 
out the door to buy cars today, but the bill to pay those cars is going 
to come due on our children and our grandchildren as they have to pay 
the debt off, which this is going to go to increase.
  This is nothing more than a program which is being funded entirely by 
debt and an increase in the Federal debt, as Congressman Obey 
forthrightly stated when he said: We are going to find the $2 billion 
we took out of this account, and we are going to refill that $2 
billion, which they will have to borrow to do. Everybody knows that.
  I don't happen to support the program, but I at least would like to 
have some integrity in this process, and I would like to have the 
program paid for. If we are going to represent to the American people 
that this program is paid for, let's pay for it. So my amendment does 
that. That is all it does. It creates a mechanism to make sure we are 
not going to replenish an account we allegedly took the money out of in 
order to pay for this account.
  The way I have set this up, it does not have to necessarily affect 
the loan guarantee program. In fact, it is not specifically the loan 
guarantee program at all what I have done. What I am suggesting we do 
is that next year, in order to make sure this program is paid for, we 
reduce what is known as the 302(a) allocation cap by $2 billion. That 
way we can be reasonably confident that before this money can be spent 
twice, there will have to be a vote, a 60-vote point of order brought 
against it on the floor of the Senate, and people will have to 
forthrightly say: Oh, we are actually borrowing from our children to do 
this. Or alternatively and refreshingly, we will not borrow from our 
children to do this; we will actually pay for it by reducing the 302(a) 
allocation cap.
  It is an attempt to bring some integrity to the process, some honesty 
to the process, and actually pay for the program we allege we are 
paying for rather than use this gamesmanship, which is the ultimate 
bait and switch of saying we are going to pay for it today from funds 
we are taking out of the account tomorrow, and then we are going to 
refund that account tomorrow so we end up borrowing the money from our 
children. In this case, it would be twice because we had to borrow the 
money on the stimulus to begin with. That is all it does. It tries to 
put a little integrity into the process and make the pay-fors for this 
program honest and straightforward and reasonably real. Nothing is real 
around here when it comes to money and paying for things, but hopefully 
it would be more substantive and more substantial relative to the 
integrity of the process than under the proposal as it is presently 
drafted.
  On the underlying program, though, I do have to make this point 
because it is an interesting point, not made by me, but I want to 
paraphrase it. It was made by the editors at the Web site Edmunds. 
Edmunds is an automobile Web site where you can get an evaluation of 
cars, sort of like consumer reports on cars. They will tell you how 
much your car is worth. They will tell you what the rating on your car 
is. They have a valuation of your car. They are totally independent. 
They have no dog in this fight.
  They looked at this program and said: Something is wrong here. We 
have $4,500 per car being the amount that is reimbursed to people. You 
can buy about 220,000 cars, $4,500 a car. Their point was that over the 
time period this bill has been in place, in the typical course of 
business, 200,000 cars would have been turned in, old mileage, used 
cars that would have been turned in anyway. If there was no 
repossession, no ``debt for clunkers'' program, 200,000 cars would have 
been turned in to purchase new cars during this same timeframe. That is 
their estimate, and they are professionals. They look at it in a 
totally independent way. That was their estimate.
  So the incremental increase in the number of cars that are being 
turned in under this program is about 20,000 to 22,000 cars. That does 
not work out to $4,500 a car; that is costing the American taxpayers 
about $45,000 a car to get those extra 22,000 cars off the road. 
Ridiculous.
  The program has so many inconsistencies about it, but the ultimate 
inconsistency is we are borrowing from our kids to pay this. If this 
bill passes, we will have added $3 billion to the debt of our children. 
It is not appropriate. It is certainly not appropriate to spend it to 
buy a car today and pay for it 10, 15 years from now and have our 
children have to pay for it 10, 15 years from now by adding to the debt 
of this Nation.
  My amendment attempts to address that issue by trying to enforce the 
pay-fors in this bill by reducing the 302(a) allocation next year.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I wish to speak and have my time 
allocated to the Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I wish to speak both to the Kyl 
amendment and to the Gregg amendment, but

[[Page S8951]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to this 
amendment No. 2302 that is being offered by my distinguished colleague 
and friend from New Hampshire.
  Madam President, at the beginning of this Congress, just about every 
Member in this Chamber approached me and my colleague from Mississippi, 
Senator Cochran, and indicated that we had to fix the legislative and 
appropriations process.
  Senator Cochran and I have taken that challenge very seriously, and 
we are on the path of doing just that. In the course of 7 months, we 
have enacted into law the Recovery Act and closed the books on the 
110th Congress with the enactment of the omnibus and supplemental 
appropriations bills. In looking forward to fiscal year 2010, we have 
reported out of the Appropriations Committee 11 of 12 appropriations 
bills, and the Senate has passed four of them.
  There are 2 months remaining before the start of the 2010 fiscal 
year, and to state it very bluntly, Madam President, this amendment 
will wreak havoc on both the work that has already been accomplished 
and the work that still needs to be accomplished. A vote for an 
amendment that cuts $2 billion from our 2010 budget allocation at this 
late date--and let me remind everyone in this Chamber that we are 
operating within an allocation that is $10 billion below the 
President's budget request--is a vote against getting our 
appropriations process back to regular order.
  The Appropriations Committee has spent many months reviewing agency 
requests and drafting bills to reflect those needs within the 
limitations of the budget allocation set by the Budget Committee. To 
cut that budget allocation further after the fiscal year 2010 bills 
have been reported out of the committee would require significant cuts 
to the remaining bills that have yet to receive floor consideration. 
Madam President, that is fiscally irresponsible and simply 
unacceptable.
  My good friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, has indicated this 
amendment is needed to pay for the CARS program now and not in the 
future. I would like to note that the authors of the underlying bill 
are already paying for this program by reallocating funding that was 
provided in the stimulus bill. This program is paid for at this moment.
  Further, in general, the budget allocation for fiscal year 2010 
discretionary spending reflected the fact that an economic recovery 
package for the next 2 years had just been enacted. This was one of the 
primary reasons for agreeing to an allocation that is $10 billion below 
the President's request. Consequently, taking discretionary funding 
from fiscal year 2010 to pay for a program that is being funded out of 
the Recovery Act is the equivalent of double accounting.
  Madam President, the amendment is unnecessary for the purposes of 
paying for the CARS program, and it is harmful for the purposes of 
getting our appropriations process back to the regular order. So, 
therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 2301

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining in opposition 
to the Kyl amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use that 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we will soon vote on whether to extend 
the Cash for Clunkers Program. Rarely has this body passed legislation 
that has so clearly and quickly met our goals than when it approved the 
first installment of money for this program earlier this summer. The 
program offers rebates of $3,500 to $4,500 to consumers who trade in 
old inefficient vehicles for new cars and trucks with higher mileage. 
Thousands of consumers who hope to take advantage now wonder whether 
they will have the opportunity.
  It is important to understand the context in which we originally 
approved this program. Amid the most severe downturn since the Great 
Depression, auto sales everywhere plummeted--in the United States and 
around the globe, foreign manufacturers and U.S.-based companies alike. 
In the U.S. market, month after month automakers have reported sales 
that have fallen 40 percent or more from a year ago. This unprecedented 
decline has harmed not only the hard-working autoworkers in my home 
State and other States, but auto suppliers, auto dealers, and small 
businesses in every community in this Nation. Because the auto industry 
represents such a large share of this Nation's overall economic 
activity, as long as this sales decline continues, it will weigh down 
our economy, frustrating attempts to lift us out of recession.
  In establishing this program, we did not establish a course. We 
followed a

[[Page S8952]]

path that had already been laid out by other nations. In Germany, 
France, Japan, and other nations, governments recognized the danger to 
their own auto industries in this time of economic crisis and they 
acted. Germany's Government established its own version of cash for 
clunkers, and in June car sales were up 40 percent over the same period 
a year ago. Other nations saw similar impressive increases.
  After just a few days, our efforts have borne impressive results. 
This week Ford reported its sales increased in July from a year ago, 
the first year-over-year increase reported this year by any automaker. 
Other carmakers, foreign and domestic, saw smaller declines than in 
previous months. The impact has been so striking that one private 
economist has raised his estimate for economic growth in the third 
quarter of this year by more than 50 percent based solely on the 
success of cash for clunkers.
  This program accomplished what it was intended to accomplish. In just 
a few days, a quarter of a million Americans traded in their old car 
for a new model using the credits available from this program. That is 
a quarter of a million American families who have more fuel-efficient 
transportation, a quarter of a million transactions that will pump new 
money into local economies, and an incalculable boost to this Nation's 
struggling auto industry.
  The program has made significant improvements in the fuel efficiency 
of our Nation's vehicle fleet. According to data from the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, consumers using this program are 
buying new vehicles with an average 63 percent improvement in fuel 
economy over their trade-ins. More than four out of every five vehicles 
traded in are trucks; nearly three out of five new vehicles are cars. 
The average mileage improvement of 9.6 miles per gallon is more than 
double the program's minimum and far greater than expected.

  In short, cash for clunkers has exceeded earlier projections in its 
ability to get older cars off the road and their damaging emissions out 
of our skies. Seldom have we had an opportunity to do more for our 
environment than we do today. Reinforcing and extending this program 
will get replaced hundreds of thousands more of these environmental 
clunkers with highly efficient new vehicles.
  Some Members have proposed changes to the program by amendments. Some 
amendments are pending, or will be introduced, that are not related to 
this program. These may be well intended amendments, but it is vitally 
important to keep in mind the need for immediate action. The House of 
Representatives has sent us a bill that will keep the program running. 
Any amendments--any amendments--that the Senate approves will send the 
legislation back to the House of Representatives where action will be 
delayed until the House reconvenes in September. So any amendment that 
is adopted here is the death knell for this program. It would have to 
end immediately if an amendment is adopted because of the uncertainty 
over whether funds remain and to what extent. This program is designed 
to be a one-time stimulus, not a stop-and-start deal, which would make 
it more complex and confusing.
  This situation is not new. We had a similar situation just a week or 
so ago. When the Senate passed a bill to restore funding to the highway 
trust fund, an amendment pending to that bill would have prevented the 
Federal Government from cutting $8.7 billion in transportation funding 
from several States, including my home State of Michigan. Normally, it 
would have been a simple decision to vote for that amendment to avoid 
those cuts. Michigan is in desperate need, and that amendment would 
seemingly protect hundreds of millions of dollars for my State. Yet I 
voted against the amendment. I did so because of the time-sensitive 
nature of the underlying bill. And many others in this body voted 
against an amendment for that same reason.
  The highway trust fund was on the verge of running out of money, and 
the bill that we were voting on restored funding to keep it solvent 
through September. With the House of Representatives about to adjourn a 
week or so ago, any Senate amendment to that bill would have required 
that it be sent back to the House of Representatives, likely killing 
the bill. I, and many others here, decided not to risk letting the 
highway trust fund run out of funds. So what did we do? We voted for 
the bill, but we voted against an amendment, even though that amendment 
would have helped our States. What we did instead is we pledged to seek 
passage of that amendment at a later date to a different legislative 
vehicle. I opposed every amendment to that bill, as did a majority of 
our colleagues.
  That is the situation we are in now. If we want this program to 
continue, we have but one choice. We have to vote for it, but we also 
must vote against all of the amendments that are pending to it, even 
though those amendments may be attractive standing on their own and in 
ordinary circumstances. It is going to be difficult for some to vote 
against these amendments. I understand that. But the issue is going to 
be, do you want the Cash for Clunkers Program to continue? If any 
amendment passes, it is the end of that program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2304

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that Coburn amendment No. 2304 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2304.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide assistance to charities and families in need)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SECTION ___. ASSISTANCE TO CHARITIES AND FAMILIES IN NEED.

       Section 1302 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 
     (Public Law 111-32; 123 Stat. 1909; 49 U.S.C. 32901 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by inserting ``or for donation 
     to a charity''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), strike ``For each'' and insert 
     ``Except as provided in subparagraph (C), for each'';
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) Donation to charity.--For each eligible trade-in 
     vehicle surrendered to a dealer under the Program, the dealer 
     may dispose of such vehicle by donating such vehicle to--
       ``(i) an organization that--

       ``(I) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) 
     of such Code, including educational institutions, health care 
     providers, and housing assistance providers described in such 
     section; and
       ``(II) certifies to the Secretary that the donated vehicle 
     will be used by the organization to further its exempt 
     purpose or function, including to provide transportation of 
     individuals for health care services, education, employment, 
     general use, or other purpose relating to the provision of 
     assistance to those in need, including sales to raise 
     financial support for the organization; or

       ``(ii) a family that does not have sufficient income to 
     afford, but can demonstrate a need for, an automobile.''.

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, it is interesting to note what we just 
heard from the Senator from Michigan about how we can't fix this 
program--admitting that there are several things wrong with it--because 
the House is out of town and we have to pass it. So we are going to do 
the wrong thing for the right reason.
  I have not heard from a dealer in my State that is not for this 
program. There is no question it is stimulatory. There is no question, 
however, that the stimulation is one based on time of sales, not on 
true total stimulation to our economy. What we are doing is stimulating 
future sales to be bought at this time. But, more importantly, we have 
two untoward disadvantages that this program is causing which is 
actually hurting the poorest and the weakest and those of color in this 
country.
  When we wrote this amendment, we went to the Finance Committee. We 
were told it was not going to score.

[[Page S8953]]

Then when we got to the Joint Economic Committee, they scored this 
amendment as costing $90 million, but what they did not take into 
consideration is that if these cars were actually given to charities or 
to people who did not have a car, it scored exactly the same. In 
essence, there is no net score with the bill.
  The fact is, with this program--because we are destroying half a 
billion dollars worth of real assets so far in this program and we are 
going to destroy $1.2 to $1.3 billion worth of real assets, real cars 
that charities could really use to give to real people who do not have 
transportation--we are taking that away. In our tough economic times 
right now, charities' income is down about 30 percent across the board 
while the demands on the charitable organizations are up. We all 
recognize that charities use the contributions of automobiles to then 
turn around to sell and fund a lot of charities.
  What this amendment does is allow the vehicles that are traded in to 
be donated to poor families or to charities. Why destroy a perfectly 
good car that somebody in a rural area who cannot get access to health 
care now because they don't have transportation--why destroy that 
mechanism of opportunity?
  I understand there probably will not be the votes for this amendment. 
But to say we are going to take a perfectly good automobile that 
somebody less fortunate could utilize for years for transportation 
purposes, that will elevate them economically, and instead we are going 
to destroy it, we are going to destroy the opportunity for somebody 
less fortunate to have that automobile. This program is working for two 
groups of people: it is working for the auto industry and their 
dealers, and it is working for anybody who qualifies and uses the Cash 
for Clunkers Program. But it is not working for everybody else. This is 
a small minority of Americans who are going to benefit for a specific 
industry.
  I heard the Senator from Arizona raise the question: Why not golf 
clubs? Why not dishwashers? Why not washing machines? Why not boats? 
Why not RVs? Why not other industries that also were on their backs, 
not having the same benefit?
  I also would note that several organizations, a couple from which we 
received endorsements--the Military Order of the Purple Heart and 
Lutheran Charities throughout America endorse it.
  I thought I would raise one other point; that is, this amendment is 
significantly environmentally friendly. A recent ABC News story on the 
clunkers quoted the following:

       Believe it or not, even some environmentalists are against 
     the new law. They point out it will end the lives of 
     perfectly serviceable vehicles with years of life left. One 
     way to be green is to get a more carbon friendly car. Another 
     way to be green is to recycle or buy a used car. It takes 113 
     billion Btus to build a Toyota Prius. You have to drive that 
     car 46,000 miles before you are even on the carbon footprint.

  If you take the same car and give that car to somebody in need, you 
enhance their economic condition and you do not create another 113 
billion Btus of energy.
  Hybrids get great mileage, we talked about that, but in terms of net-
net, in terms of being green--we hear that all the time. If we want to 
do what is most efficient from an environmentally safe standpoint, this 
amendment does it. You still have the Cash for Clunkers Program, but 
what you do is turn around and use the cars by giving them to 
charitable organizations or families who need them. If we were to do 
that, especially if we are going to increase this program $2 billion 
additionally, you are going to save $1 billion worth of net assets that 
we can transfer to those less fortunate in this country. For that, the 
tax consequences will be $90 million, which is exactly the same tax 
consequences we would have had on these cars had we not had a cash for 
clunkers program.
  It is crazy, in this country, to intentionally destroy perfectly good 
automobiles. It is nuts. It is not rational. Yet we have a program and 
we are already doing it. In Oklahoma we had a car that was traded in 
that had 10,000 miles on it. They destroyed the engine on the car under 
this program. Granted, it had poor gas mileage, but that was 
transportation to somebody who was poor, transportation to somebody who 
did not have transportation.
  We have been debating health care around here for 6 months. The 
biggest limitation on access to health care in rural and poor 
communities is transportation, and we are going to take away an 
opportunity to give many of those people transportation. We are going 
to take it away. The schizophrenia of Washington continues to amaze me, 
and the lack of common sense that is associated with what we do.
  I will make one final note. The reason this bill has problems, the 
reason the Transportation Department is having trouble with it is it 
never went through a committee, never had multiple hearings, had not 
had an oversight on what we were going to do, and it was done in such a 
short period of time that we did not even allow the Transportation 
Department an effective amount of time to set it up so it would be 
effective and not wasteful.
  If you hear any complaints from the dealers, it is they don't know 
where they stand on whether they are going to get paid. They have no 
clue right now because even though they filed paperwork, getting that 
money to them--what we are seeing is a lot of problems with unhappy 
customers right now at the dealers because the Transportation 
Department cannot be efficient in administering this program.
  I conclude by noting that if this is the standard under which we are 
going to reenergize our economy, then we ought to apply the same 
standard to every other industry. If we do, we will not be bankrupt in 
11 years, we are going to be bankrupt next year.
  I want our auto companies to succeed. There is no question there are 
stimulatory benefits to what we are doing, but it is at a great cost. 
As the Senator from New Hampshire noted, the net-net cost is $45,000 
per net car that would not have been traded in. It is foolhardy.
  I hope Members of the body will consider this amendment. I know they 
have been instructed to not consider it.
  I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. 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,

[[Page S8954]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
four news articles published in the last week about how cash for 
clunkers has negatively impacted charities. This comes from the North-
West Cable News, Denver Post, Fox News, and nbc4.com.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            News Quotes on How Clunkers Is Hurting Charities


                          northwest cable news

       ``Cash for Clunkers'' hurting charities--
       Some say the popular ``Cash for Clunkers'' program is 
     taking cash out of the hands of local charities.
       Animal Services of Thurston County depends on donations of 
     up to $20,000 a year from Northwest Charity Donation Service. 
     It's a service that relies on donated cars. But since the 
     ``Clunkers'' program began, the source of funding is drying 
     up.
       ``It's probably been at least a 40 to 50 percent drop in 
     donations that people can choose to go to a charity of their 
     choice from the area,'' said Thomas Jones, of Northwest 
     Charity Donation Service.
       Charities are also concerned that, as more cars end up at 
     salvage yards, there will be fewer inexpensive used cars will 
     be available for working families.


                              denver post

       Charities fear pinch from ``clunkers'' program--
       Area charities reliant on car donations for funding say the 
     government's ``cash for clunkers'' program might hurt them.
       ``If the government is going to give them a chunk of change 
     for their clunker, then we're concerned that they're not 
     going to come to us any longer,'' said Meaghan Carabello of 
     Goodwill Industries Denver.
       Last year, Goodwill and Cars Helping Charities, the third 
     party that takes in the donations and sells them, took in 
     1,900 and 3,000 donated cars, respectively.
       For Goodwill, that translated to about $220,000 in revenue.


                              foxnews.com

       ``Cash for Clunkers'' puts the brakes on donations--
       Riteway Charity Services in Sun Valley, Calif. turns 
     thousands of donated cars into money for local food banks, 
     homeless shelters and Boys and Girls clubs. They say the 
     recession put a dent in donations; they're down 30 percent 
     from last year.
       Now the car rebate program has really put the brakes on, 
     leaving charities third in line. Charities can offer a tax 
     write-off as little as $500 next spring. But that just can't 
     compete with the program handing car buyers rebates of 
     between $3,500 and $4,500 for trading in their gas-guzzlers 
     for new, higher-mileage models.
       The latest IRS figures show 300,000 cars were donated in 
     2005. And while the program may be a shot in the arm for 
     dealers, charities that rely on donated cars say Uncle Sam 
     has put them on life support.


                               nbc4i.com

       Cash for Clunkers could impact local charities--
       Charitable groups count on the money they make from donated 
     cars to help fund their programs. Now, the groups are afraid 
     that donations are going to dry up.
       Officials at Goodwill said they are worried that the Cash 
     for Clunkers program will make people choose cash over 
     charity and close the door on an opportunity to bring in 
     money for local programs.
       ``When you pull 250,000 cars off the streets, maybe more, 
     there are cars that could end up in our lots and help low-
     income buyers,'' Knowlton said.
       ``Every single car is an opportunity. We love every car,'' 
     Hartley said.

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I could be a whole lot more comfortable 
with this bill if you told me there was not another one coming in a 
month. But the fact is, what we are doing is buying forward sales. 
Every economist says that. Eighty percent of the sales that come in 
under cash for clunkers--we are just moving up sales that were going to 
be there anyway. There is nothing wrong with that as long as we say 
there comes a point in time we are not going to do that.
  I wonder if my distinguished colleague from Michigan would commit to 
the body that we are not going to see another one of these bills in 2 
months, 3 months, 4 months, or 5 months, we are going to subsidize the 
purchase of automobiles by stealing from our children in this country-- 
regardless of the economic benefit for one particular industry. Is 
there an answer to that question? The fact that there is not an answer 
to the question means it is not going to stop with this one. As soon as 
this next program stops, and as soon as we run through the money, the 
sales are going to go right back down.

  Then our option is going to be: Well, we have to do another one and 
another one because we are buying forward sales.
  What we need is the health of the economy. I do not deny we need to 
inject the proper amount of fiscal stimulus, true fiscal stimulus, not 
a government transfer payment, which is 60 percent of the stimulus bill 
that was passed, but it is an interesting question: When does it stop?
  If we are going to do it for automobiles, and let's say automobiles 
get healthy but the appliance industry does not, are we going to do it 
for the appliance industry? How much more can we afford to borrow from 
our kids? Those are legitimate questions that need to be addressed.
  I understand the depth and breadth of the difficulties the States in 
the upper Midwest are feeling from this recession and especially the 
impact on the automobile companies. I want to be cooperative. I want to 
see them come out.
  But it would certainly give us much less indigestion if we knew there 
was truly going to be an end and not another of these Cash for Clunkers 
Programs when the sales dribble right back down because all we did was 
stimulate forward sales into this sales period.
  With that, I reserve the reminder of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. First, let my thank my friend from Oklahoma for raising 
some of these questions which are entitled to be debated. We are not 
alone in having a Cash for Clunkers Program. Other countries, including 
Germany, have had these programs. So we are not designing something 
from scratch. All auto-producing countries that I know of in the world 
are fighting to have an

[[Page S8955]]

auto industry come out at the end of this recession.
  Unless we take action in a number of ways, that is not going to 
happen. So the Cash for Clunkers Program is based on a similar type of 
program in other countries, including Germany, where it has been very 
successful.
  It is not my intent--to answer the other part of his question--it is 
surely not my intent that this program continue beyond this extension. 
No one can give an assurance as to what is going to happen in the 
future with this body or other Members of this body or, indeed, with 
myself. But it is not my intent that this be a continued program beyond 
this extension. The reason it was so essential that we have this 
extension is it was such a successful program. It sold out so quickly, 
we think our success actually overwhelmed us.
  I don't believe, as the Senator from Oklahoma does, that people were 
buying forward. I think maybe the opposite happened. By the way, I 
think people may have been waiting until there was this kind of 
incentive because people are in desperate economic shape. Perhaps some 
of the people who knew there was going to be such a program may have 
held back in buying a vehicle.
  But also the other prong of this program, besides the economic boost 
it gives to the economy overall, is the environmental part. That is the 
part which the Senator's amendment does not address. It is intended to 
get clunkers off the road, not just to get an economic stimulus into 
the auto area for sales of vehicles that benefit not just producers but 
car dealers and suppliers, but there is also a huge environmental 
benefit which has not only proven itself, but done much better than 
anybody could have expected.
  That is ignored by the Senator's amendment, because keeping those 
cars on the road, as the Senator would do, denies the environmental 
benefit of the Cash for Clunkers Program. That is another reason I 
would oppose the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Is it not true that the average plants were down for 10 
weeks?
  Mr. LEVIN. I do not know the number.
  Mr. COBURN. Maybe 10 weeks. I know Chrysler was down longer than 
that. The fact is, when I drive by the auto dealers, and when I check 
the statistics with NHTSA, inventories are low.
  So we are going to put $2 billion back out, when inventories are at 
half the level on the car lots of what they normally are. So if, in 
fact, you pass this, you might ought to spread it out over a period of 
time so the factories can get the cars to the dealers because that is a 
significant worrisome part on a lot of my dealers--that if you bring it 
back now, and you bring it back, we are not going to have the cars to 
sell them.
  I did make a note before, I say to the chairman. He is my chairman. I 
get along with him great. I have great admiration for him. I am glad 
Oklahoma does not have any car manufacturing plants right now. I can 
tell you that. But I did make a point that it takes 153 billion BTUs to 
make a Toyota Prius. You have to drive that car, on average, 2 years 
before you are ever at break-even.
  So if you take a used car--and this program does not apply to used 
cars, right? It applies only to new cars. If you take a used car and 
compare it to a car of similar size, you are at least 2\1/2\ years 
before you ever get the first benefit, in terms of green, 2\1/2\ years.
  So we may see a difference in those, but in terms of BTUs consumed, 
it is 2\1/2\ years before you see the first change in terms of carbon 
footprint under this program. Ultimately, I would admit to you there is 
a carbon benefit to it.
  Mr. LEVIN. In response to the Senator, I think that same point is 
true with the purchase of any new car.
  Mr. COBURN. Yes, it is true.
  Mr. LEVIN. But the faster we get the more fuel-efficient cars, the 
better environmental impact we are going to have, even though there is 
that time period, obviously, when there is a carbon footprint that 
results from the production of the new car.
  But you get to that 2\1/2\ years faster then if you buy that new car 
now than if you buy it a year from now or 2 years from now.
  Mr. COBURN. Well, 2 years from now, it is going to have 4 or 5 miles 
better mileage.
  Mr. LEVIN. It may. We do not know that.
  Mr. COBURN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, 1 week after commencing the $1 billion 
Cash for Clunkers Program, it is so popular that it has used up all its 
funds.
  Could it be that through this program, which entices car buyers with 
up to $4,500 to trade in their old cars, the government has finally 
devised a smart way to stimulate the economy?
  In a word, no.
  Instead, the Federal Government has sent another $1 billion of 
taxpayer funds into the economic abyss with $2 billion of taxpayers' 
funds to follow.
  It has robbed Peter to pay Paul, to give a kickback to the automotive 
industry.
  Advocates of the Cash for Clunkers Program state the additional $2 
billion in funding is necessary because the program is such a great 
success.
  Of course it is. Who does not want free money?
  The Cash for Clunkers Program is simply another bailout to prop up a 
struggling industry wrapped in the political guise of an 
environmentally friendly program.
  While I agree that there are benefits to getting older, less fuel-
efficient vehicles off the road, do not be fooled. That is not even 
what this program accomplishes.
  Let me explain.
  Under the Cash for Clunkers Program, it does not matter how big a 
difference in gas mileage there is between the car you are trading in 
and the car you are buying.
  The trade-in must only meet the 18 miles per gallon requirement to be 
considered a clunker.
  After that, environmental concerns end.
  As a result, under the Cash for Clunkers Program, replacing an 18 
miles per gallon vehicle with one that offers 22 miles per gallon gets 
a subsidy.
  But you do not receive any Federal funds if you replace a 19 miles 
per gallon vehicle with one that gets 40 miles per gallon.
  If improving gas mileage is the goal, then a sliding scale that 
adjusted the subsidy with the difference in gas mileage between old and 
new cars would seem reasonable.
  Or if reducing emissions from older cars is the objective, the 
subsidy could be larger for trading in older vehicles.
  The Cash for Clunkers Program does not do either.
  So, if there are no significant environmental benefits, then the goal 
must be to help stimulate the economy.
  Yet the program has done little to actually stimulate the economy.
  Many of the individuals taking advantage of the program's subsidies 
are not new car buyers spurred by this incentive package, but instead 
those who put their purchase on hold waiting for the program to launch.
  Simply put, these buyers would have bought the car anyway.
  Edumunds.com, a noted online site for car sales, stated this number 
could be over 100,000 car buyers.
  Further, Edmunds also published an analysis showing that in any given 
month, 60,000 to 70,000 ``clunker-like'' deals happen with no 
government program in place.
  Therefore, the 200,000 deals the government was originally prepared 
to fund through the Cash for Clunkers Program were likely the natural 
``clunker'' trade-in rate.
  This program squeezed months of normal activity into just a few days.
  When the backlog is met, interest in the program will fade, and the 
facade of economic benefit will disappear.
  The Cash for Clunkers Program is a shell game of transferring wealth 
from the pockets of one taxpayer to another.
  We should call it what it really is, another billion dollar auto 
bailout.
  This program is little more than a clunker itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 2303

  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to call up Vitter amendment No. 
2303 to the pending legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.

[[Page S8956]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2303.

  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 2303

(Purpose: To provide for a date certain for termination of the Troubled 
                         Asset Relief Program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. TERMINATION OF TARP.

       Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
     2008 (12 U.S.C. 5230) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b); and
       (2) by striking ``(a) Termination.--''.

  Mr. VITTER. I urge bipartisan support of the Vitter amendment. It is 
very simple and straightforward but important. It ends the TARP bailout 
program on a date certain, the date certain originally set out, which 
is December 31 of this year.
  Under the TARP bailout legislation, the program is supposed to end on 
that date. However, there was some fine print. The fine print said the 
Treasury Secretary unilaterally can say: No, we need to extend it. On 
his own, with no additional vote of Congress, he can extend it until 
October 3, 2010.
  I think any such extension would be absolutely contrary to the best 
interests of the Nation, and I believe we should act and simply take 
that extension authority back and wind down the program and end the 
program, the bailout, in an orderly way on the original intended date 
of December 31 of this year.
  I think we should do this for three clear reasons. First of all, the 
biggest reason is simply the TARP bailout program was rushed through 
Congress in what was described as an impending and indeed a cataclysmic 
crisis. We were told by several experts certainly, including the 
Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that the 
financial system was in imminent danger of collapsing. I am not 
exaggerating. I am simply repeating their statements from last fall.
  So Congress, certainly over my objection, passed the TARP bailout 
program in that atmosphere of absolute crisis. Well, we may disagree 
about where we are getting toward recovery and what we see for the next 
year. But I think we can all agree that imminent collapse, if it was 
ever before us, is not before us now; that huge so-called cataclysmic 
crisis, if it was ever a threat, has passed. So the whole rationale for 
the extraordinary $700 billion TARP bailout program, that crisis, has 
clearly passed.
  Again, I am not saying we are out of this recession. I am not saying 
we are not in tough economic times. I am not saying we do not have a 
lot further to go in recovery. I am saying no one believes the world 
financial system is in imminent danger of collapse or will be, 
thankfully, anytime soon.
  Clearly, the entire rationale for such an extraordinary and 
unprecedented use of government power and intervention and the use of 
$700 billion of taxpayer funds, that rationale has passed.
  Reason No. 2 is that the TARP bailout, in practice, has become 
nothing more than a political slush fund and has been used in many 
different ways, never as it was originally designed.
  Of course, we all heard, when it was originally proposed, that it was 
a toxic asset purchase program; it would be used for one purpose and 
one purpose only--for the government to buy toxic assets to get them 
off the balance sheets of troubled financial institutions. That was the 
sum and substance, 100 percent of the original design and rationale. As 
we all know, it never was used in that way. Literally within a few 
weeks of Congress passing the program last fall, it morphed completely. 
We weren't going to use it to buy toxic assets anymore. Then it morphed 
into an equity investment program for the largest banks that were 
deemed too big to fail. That, of course, has been carried out to the 
tune of not just $700 billion but trillions of dollars, as this money 
is constantly reprocessed.

  Next TARP was morphed again and used as a slush fund to bail out two 
auto companies. Specifically, the administration--at the time, the Bush 
administration--said: No, TARP is not about manufacturers, auto 
companies, at all. It is not about that. It is about financial 
institutions. Nevertheless, it was morphed again, used as a slush fund 
to bail out two auto companies. And there are many different, smaller 
programs which have been devised and funded out of the TARP bailout 
slush fund.
  TARP has been consistently used by the government for whatever 
different purpose, whatever new bright idea the administration--first, 
the Bush administration and now the Obama administration--decides is a 
good thing to do. It has truly become a slush fund, open-ended, no 
limits, that the administration can use pretty much however it wants. 
There doesn't seem to be any real or meaningful limitation. So far the 
original $700 billion program has grown to reach $3 trillion. That is 
because some money is paid out. It is paid back in. It is reprocessed.
  According to SIGTARP, the group that monitors this, the total 
financial exposure of TARP and TARP-related programs, when we look at 
all of the myriad activities, may reach $3 trillion.
  Third and finally, the third important reason we should establish 
this date certain to wind down the TARP bailout slush fund is that from 
the very beginning, TARP has not been transparent. It has been very 
opaque. It has been ripe for fraud. Unfortunately, there are numerous 
pieces of evidence and media accounts to bear this out. For instance, 
on July 21, Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the TARP 
program, issued a quarterly report to Congress. In it, he said: As of 
June 30, there are 35 ongoing criminal and civil investigations about 
misuses of money; Federal felony charges against Gordon Grigg, FTC 
action against misleading use of MakingHomeAffordable.gov, and on and 
on.
  In its quarterly report issued in July, SIGTARP said that the 
Treasury ``has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations that SIGTARP 
believes are essential to providing basic transparency and fulfill 
Treasury's stated commitment to implement TARP `with the highest degree 
of accountability and transparency possible.' ''
  Specifically, SIGTARP had four key recommendations, and they have not 
been implemented in any meaningful way.
  The Vitter amendment is very simple, very straightforward. Let's 
abide by the original end date for the TARP bailout fund--December 31 
of this year. Let's take back the unilateral authority the Secretary of 
the Treasury now has to extend that to October 3 of 2010, for three 
simple reasons: No. 1, there is no impending crisis anymore; No. 2, 
TARP has been used as a slush fund for everything under the Sun except 
the original purpose of buying troubled assets; and No. 3, TARP has 
never been transparent, open, and aboveboard. It is rife with fraud and 
misuse, unfortunately, documented by criminal prosecutions, IG reports 
and the like.
  I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this 
reasonable amendment.
  I retain the remainder of my time.


                           Amendment No. 2306

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and the clerk call up amendment 2306.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2306.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an 
 income tax credit for certain home purchases, and to transfer to the 
Treasury unobligated funds made available by the American Recovery and 
 Reinvestment Act in the amount of the reduction in revenue resulting 
                           from such credit)

       On page 3, after line 11, insert the following:
       Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (1) In general.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting after section 25D the following new section:

     ``SEC. 25E. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN HOME PURCHASES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who is a 
     purchaser of a principal residence during the taxable year, 
     there shall be

[[Page S8957]]

     allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter 
     an amount equal to 10 percent of the purchase price of the 
     residence.
       ``(2) Dollar limitation.--The amount of the credit allowed 
     under paragraph (1) shall not exceed $15,000.
       ``(3) Allocation of credit amount.--At the election of the 
     taxpayer, the amount of the credit allowed under paragraph 
     (1) (after application of paragraph (2)) may be equally 
     divided among the 2 taxable years beginning with the taxable 
     year in which the purchase of the principal residence is 
     made.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Date of purchase.--The credit allowed under 
     subsection (a) shall be allowed only with respect to 
     purchases made--
       ``(A) after the date of the enactment of the Act entitled 
     `Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for 
     the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program.', and
       ``(B) on or before the date that is 1 year after such date 
     of enactment.
       ``(2) Limitation based on amount of tax.--In the case of a 
     taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the 
     credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year 
     shall not exceed the excess of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart 
     (other than this section) for the taxable year.
       ``(3) One-time only.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a credit is allowed under this 
     section in the case of any individual (and such individual's 
     spouse, if married) with respect to the purchase of any 
     principal residence, no credit shall be allowed under this 
     section in any taxable year with respect to the purchase of 
     any other principal residence by such individual or a spouse 
     of such individual.
       ``(B) Joint purchase.--In the case of a purchase of a 
     principal residence by 2 or more unmarried individuals or by 
     2 married individuals filing separately, no credit shall be 
     allowed under this section if a credit under this section has 
     been allowed to any of such individuals in any taxable year 
     with respect to the purchase of any other principal 
     residence.
       ``(c) Principal Residence.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `principal residence' has the same meaning as when 
     used in section 121.
       ``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--No credit shall be allowed 
     under this section for any purchase for which a credit is 
     allowed under section 36 or section 1400C.
       ``(e) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Joint purchase.--
       ``(A) Married individuals filing separately.--In the case 
     of 2 married individuals filing separately, subsection (a) 
     shall be applied to each such individual by substituting 
     `$7,500' for `$15,000' in subsection (a)(1).
       ``(B) Unmarried individuals.--If 2 or more individuals who 
     are not married purchase a principal residence, the amount of 
     the credit allowed under subsection (a) shall be allocated 
     among such individuals in such manner as the Secretary may 
     prescribe, except that the total amount of the credits 
     allowed to all such individuals shall not exceed $15,000.
       ``(2) Purchase.--In defining the purchase of a principal 
     residence, rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (2) and 
     (3) of section 1400C(e) (as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this section) shall apply.
       ``(3) Reporting requirement.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     section 1400C(f) (as so in effect) shall apply.
       ``(f) Recapture of Credit in the Case of Certain 
     Dispositions.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the event that a taxpayer--
       ``(A) disposes of the principal residence with respect to 
     which a credit was allowed under subsection (a), or
       ``(B) fails to occupy such residence as the taxpayer's 
     principal residence,

     at any time within 24 months after the date on which the 
     taxpayer purchased such residence, then the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year during which such 
     disposition occurred or in which the taxpayer failed to 
     occupy the residence as a principal residence shall be 
     increased by the amount of such credit.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Death of taxpayer.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     any taxable year ending after the date of the taxpayer's 
     death.
       ``(B) Involuntary conversion.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply in the case of a residence which is compulsorily or 
     involuntarily converted (within the meaning of section 
     1033(a)) if the taxpayer acquires a new principal residence 
     within the 2-year period beginning on the date of the 
     disposition or cessation referred to in such paragraph. 
     Paragraph (1) shall apply to such new principal residence 
     during the remainder of the 24-month period described in such 
     paragraph as if such new principal residence were the 
     converted residence.
       ``(C) Transfers between spouses or incident to divorce.--In 
     the case of a transfer of a residence to which section 
     1041(a) applies--
       ``(i) paragraph (1) shall not apply to such transfer, and
       ``(ii) in the case of taxable years ending after such 
     transfer, paragraph (1) shall apply to the transferee in the 
     same manner as if such transferee were the transferor (and 
     shall not apply to the transferor).
       ``(D) Relocation of members of the armed forces.--Paragraph 
     (1) shall not apply in the case of a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States on active duty who moves pursuant 
     to a military order and incident to a permanent change of 
     station.
       ``(3) Joint returns.--In the case of a credit allowed under 
     subsection (a) with respect to a joint return, half of such 
     credit shall be treated as having been allowed to each 
     individual filing such return for purposes of this 
     subsection.
       ``(4) Return requirement.--If the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the taxable year is increased under this 
     subsection, the taxpayer shall, notwithstanding section 6012, 
     be required to file a return with respect to the taxes 
     imposed under this subtitle.
       ``(g) Basis Adjustment.--For purposes of this subtitle, if 
     a credit is allowed under this section with respect to the 
     purchase of any residence, the basis of such residence shall 
     be reduced by the amount of the credit so allowed.
       ``(h) Election to Treat Purchase in Prior Year.--In the 
     case of a purchase of a principal residence after December 
     31, 2009, and on or before the date described in subsection 
     (b)(1)(B), a taxpayer may elect to treat such purchase as 
     made on December 31, 2009, for purposes of this section.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 24(b)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking ``and 25B'' and inserting ``, 
     25B, and 25E''.
       (B) Section 25(e)(1)(C)(ii) of such Code is amended by 
     inserting ``25E,'' after ``25D,''.
       (C) Section 25B(g)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 23'' and inserting ``sections 23 and 25E''.
       (D) Section 904(i) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and 25B'' and inserting ``25B, and 25E''.
       (E) Section 1016(a) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (36), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (37) and inserting ``, and'', and by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(38) to the extent provided in section 25E(g).''.
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 25D the following new item:

``Sec. 25E. Credit for certain home purchases.''.
       (4) Sunset of current first-time homebuyer credit.--
       (A) In general.--Subsection (h) of section 36 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``before 
     December 1, 2009'' and inserting ``on or before the date of 
     the enactment of the Act entitled `Making supplemental 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer 
     Assistance to Recycle and Save Program.' ''.
       (B) Election to treat purchase in prior year.--Subsection 
     (g) of section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking ``before December 1, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``on or before the date of the enactment of the Act entitled 
     `Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for 
     the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program.' ''.
       (5) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1) 
     through (4) shall apply to purchases after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (6) Transfers to the general fund.--From time to time, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to the general fund 
     of the Treasury an amount equal to the reduction in revenues 
     to the Treasury resulting from the amendments made by 
     paragraphs (1) through (4) of this subsection. 
     Notwithstanding section 5 of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. Law 111-5), such amounts shall 
     be transferred from the amounts appropriated or made 
     available and remaining unobligated under such Act.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I want to address this amendment for a 
moment, and I want to set the stage for the amendment. This amendment 
was first offered by myself and others in January of 2008. It is an 
amendment that would provide a $15,000 income tax credit to a family 
that purchases and occupies as their home any single-family dwelling in 
the United States, regardless of their age, their income, or their 
State. Six months later, in the middle of 2008, the Finance Committee 
did pass a $7,500 tax credit which was an interest-free loan, trying to 
incentivize first-time home buyers to come to the market. But because 
it was a loan, it didn't do anything. So in December of last year, we 
changed it to an $8,000 tax credit for only first-time home buyers with 
incomes less than $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.
  It has worked. In fact, if we look at sales figures from January 
through through July, we will find that entry-level housing, that 
housing under $180 to $200,000, has actually begun to recover. But if 
we examine the marketplace, we find terrible numbers, such as the 
following: 47 percent of all the homes in the United States of America 
are worth less than what is owed upon them. That is a tragedy. Worst of 
all,

[[Page S8958]]

in the month of June, 57 percent of all sales in America were 
foreclosures or short sales; 43 percent were arm's-length sales. The 
housing market continues to flounder. Values continue to decline, and 
equities continue to dissipate.
  This amendment is added to the cash for clunkers bill for a very 
important reason. As Senators Stabenow and Levin will tell us, the up-
to-$4,500 incentive to buy a new, fuel-efficient car by trading in an 
old gas-guzzling car worked. It worked so well that in 1 week the money 
disappeared.
  That demonstrates what I have known all my life. Positive incentives 
cause positive results. The problem is, though, it was not the 
automobile market that disappeared first in America. It was the 
collapse of housing in the last quarter of 2007, which accelerated in 
early 2008, which pulled away the equity, reduced the amount of credit 
folks had and caused car loans to go bad and people to not buy cars. 
The only way we will ever turn the U.S. economy around is to return the 
biggest engine of the U.S. economy and that is the construction 
industry and single-family construction and single-family homes.
  Right now we are stagnant. The problem is not with first-time buyers. 
It is with move-up buyers. It is the fellow who has transferred from 
Atlanta, GA to Hartford, CT who can't sell the house in Atlanta because 
there is no buyer for it and can't buy a house in Connecticut because 
he doesn't have the equity out of Atlanta. This tax credit does not 
take other people's tax money and give it to you to buy a house. It 
gives you a credit against the taxes that you owe. Rather than buying a 
depreciable asset such as a car, you are buying an appreciable asset 
such as real estate. It has a multiplier effect.
  When we offered this amendment last year, it was estimated by one 
economist that it would create 700,000 sales in one year and 685,000 
jobs. If there is anything America needs, it is just that. So just as 
cash for clunkers has demonstrated that positive rewards can cause 
positive actions on behalf of the consumer, so too would the tax credit 
do the same.
  By the way, the cost of this credit is estimated by CBO at $34.2 
billion. In January of 2008, they said that is too much money. Since 
then, we have spent $85 billion on AIG, $700 billion on TARP, $787 
billion on a stimulus, and we are still floundering; and $34 billion 
sounds like a pretty cheap price to address what is the principle 
problem in the economy. This amendment says it is paid for. The 
Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to transfer from the stimulus 
money to the Internal Revenue Service the claims to cover the tax 
credits filed by homeowners when they pay their taxes for the houses 
they have purchased.
  Finally and most importantly, there is a rude awakening coming in 
America, and it is coming on November 30, 2009. That is when the 
existing tax credit for first-time home buyers goes away. The last 
incentive for an arm's-length sale will have disappeared. If we think 
we have economic difficulties now, wait until that happens. But with 
this amendment, we take, from the date of its passage 1 year ahead, 
which would be sometime in August of next year, a $15,000 nonmeans-
tested credit to replace the $8,000 means-tested credit.
  If the economists are right--not me--it will do the one thing the 
U.S. economy desperately needs. It will generate a legitimate housing 
market. Values will stabilize. We will reflate in the value of homes. 
People will buy more cars because of that than they will because of 
cash for clunkers. So we want to take the evidence of the success of 
this program, take what we already know has worked in a means-tested 
manner in first-time home buyers, and apply it to every American, 
because every American is suffering in this economy. Every American 
deserves us to look for positive incentives to bring the economy back, 
restore their equity, improve their value, and return us to a vibrant 
economy. I hope the men and women of the Senate will adopt this 
amendment.
  To those who are going to say, we can't do it because the House is 
gone, I ask this question: If we were talking about health care and one 
body had passed it, the House would be back here in a New York minute. 
They could come back in a hurry, and we know it.
  Restoring our economy is important. Recovering the equity of our 
homes is important. Repaying the American people for the dissipation of 
our marketplace is important. The home buyers tax credit will do it. I 
urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Isakson amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.


                           Amendment No. 2303

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to address the Vitter amendment. 
The Senator from Louisiana has offered an amendment that would end the 
so-called TARP program on December 31 of this year and remove the 
Secretary of the Treasury's discretion to extend the deadline until 
October of next year. I can understand why that might be a popular 
idea, but I think it is important to point out that we are far from 
being out of the woods in terms of the economic difficulties we face. 
Members don't need to hear that from me. We still have about 20,000 
people a day losing their jobs. We have around 10,000 people a day 
getting foreclosure notices on their homes. We know there is still an 
emerging problem with commercial real estate that has yet to be 
addressed. It is looming out there and demanding some attention. The 
housing market is stagnant, even though there have been Herculean 
efforts offered by our colleague from Georgia, who just spoke, for 
first-time home buyers on which I joined him to provide some incentives 
for people to move forward, including his most recent proposal. Losses 
on bank balance sheets are increasing still despite the fact that there 
are very positive signs.
  I don't deny that, in fact, there seems to be an improvement, an ever 
so slight improvement in the right direction. But at this juncture, 
anyone who can say there is no longer any reason for us to take what 
funds remain within the TARP program, this is not adding to the 
funds. This is merely a question of whether the program ought to be 
terminated at the end of this year or extended for about 7 or 8 months 
into next year.

  I urge my colleagues not to, at this juncture--without anyone being 
clairvoyant--anyone who sits here and tells you there is no longer any 
need for this, I do not think is listening very carefully or watching 
very carefully what is occurring in the economy.
  So while we would all like the crisis to be behind us, and we would 
all like to stand here and say there is no longer going to be any need 
for any of these additional funds within the TARP program as they 
exist, I do not know of any one of us who could say with certainty what 
the future holds.
  I believe it is very important we have this authority extended beyond 
the 31st of December into October of next year to give us the 
opportunity to respond, should we need to, with some additional support 
to various sectors of our economy that could help us avoid what we have 
avoided so far; and that is, a deepening and further economic crisis.
  With that, when the vote occurs on the Vitter amendment, offered by 
our colleague from Louisiana, I would urge our colleagues to reject 
this amendment, not because we do not want to end the program--we do--
not because we are in favor of more resources going to TARP. That would 
be a hard vote. This merely says: Does the program get to extend beyond 
the 31st of December of this year? There is no request here for 
additional funding--merely having the funds that exist and to extend it 
for another 8 or 10 months to give us the opportunity to respond, 
should the facts require it.
  I do not think we want to look back, in January or February, and have 
to go back through reigniting or starting all over again another 
program, given the difficulties I think we would face trying to achieve 
that result. It is better to keep the program that has been in place 
and has been working and which has made a difference over these past 
many months than to abandon the program at this juncture when the 
program very well may be needed.
  With those thoughts in mind, I would urge our colleagues at the 
appropriate time to reject this amendment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

[[Page S8959]]

  Ms. STABENOW. 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.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, will my colleague yield for a moment?
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I inquired--and I appreciate the Senator's 
comments--I inquired how much in resources are remaining in the TARP 
program. I suspect it is a question where my colleagues would like to 
know what remains or what has come back. As a result of a number of 
financial institutions having paid the money back, I am now told we 
have something around $170 billion left in the TARP program or that is 
what remains of the $700 billion. There is every anticipation there 
will be resources continuing to flow back in.
  So I want to provide some assurance to our colleagues that I do not 
see any circumstance in which, at this juncture, there would be a 
request for additional TARP funds. I think that is probably on people's 
minds. So by extending the program into October of next year, it is 
very important my colleagues understand we are not asking for any 
additional funds. The funds that are in the program and that will come 
back could be used--hopefully will not need to be used--for any 
emergency that occurs after December 31. But there are adequate 
resources there that should make it unnecessary for this body to come 
back and to seek additional funds in the TARP program. I think it is an 
important point to make for our colleagues.
  Madam President, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Ms. STABENOW. 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,

[[Page S8960]]

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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time is left in opposition to 
the Isakson amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A full 15 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--I am not sure 
who controls the time in opposition--that I be allowed to use 3 minutes 
of that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Isakson amendment is an example of an 
amendment which is not only well intended but an amendment that I 
happen to favor and have favored on a number of occasions on this 
floor.
  One of the problems, though, is it is very clear we have a choice 
before us. We are either going to have an extension of the Cash for 
Clunkers Program, with passage of the House bill without any changes in 
it, or it is going to die. Passage of the Isakson amendment is not only 
well intended, but as good an amendment as it is, it will defeat both. 
We cannot get the Isakson amendment passed into law by adopting it 
here. It would be added to a bill which is going to go nowhere except 
to a House which has been adjourned. And we cannot keep this Cash for 
Clunkers Program going unless we adopt the House bill today.
  If we leave without adopting the House bill or amending the House 
bill, it is the end of the most successful program we have seen in the 
stimulus package. That is the choice. So adopting the Isakson amendment 
does not get us where Senator Isakson wants us to get, and it destroys 
the Cash for Clunkers Program extension.
  It has been a highly successful program, probably the most successful 
of any of the stimulus packages, at least to date. We are put in a 
position--a number of us--of voting against these amendments, 
amendments, for instance, as well intended as is the Harkin 
amendment. Voting against an amendment such as that is difficult, we 
know that, but we did it a week ago. We had to do it when the highway 
trust fund came up. We had to vote against an amendment which most of 
us, I believe, favored, which would have produced money for our States, 
in order to have a bill passed without any amendment so that we could 
get it done because the House was about to adjourn. So we were put in 
that position. It is not unusual around here that we are put in this 
position. It is a fact of life around here. It is not hard to explain 
back home why we had to do this.

  So if we favor the cash for clunkers extension, we have to vote 
against every amendment. There cannot be a change. There cannot be a 
period, a comma, a word, a paragraph changed in the House bill. If 
there is, it is the death knell for this very successful program.
  So I hope we will vote against all amendments. Some of them are very 
difficult to vote against. Some of the amendments we may have voted for 
before, including the Isakson amendment. Some like the amendment of 
Senator Harkin, which is such a well-intended amendment. It has other 
complications to it, by the way, which would require it being modified, 
I believe, if it were going to have the effect that is intended, which 
would require regulations to be adopted, and that would take so long in 
any event that holding up the cash for clunkers bill for that to happen 
would also be the death knell for this bill that is so valuable.
  So I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would just let all Senators know that 
we are working to probably move to the votes fairly shortly, as soon as 
we get a unanimous consent agreement. So at this time I would suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold her request?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I withhold.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to include 
additional cosponsors to my amendment: Senator Alexander, Senator 
Corker, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Enzi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
sequence with respect to the pending amendments be the following, and 
commence once this agreement is entered, with no further debate except 
as specified below:
  Harkin amendment No. 2300, Kyl amendment No. 2301, Gregg amendment 
No. 2302, Coburn amendment No. 2304, Vitter amendment No. 2303, and 
Isakson amendment No. 2306; that the previous order with respect to 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form, 
prior to each vote, and vote time limitation, after the first vote 
remaining in effect; further that upon disposition of the pending 
amendments, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time, and 
the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2300

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe the pending amendment is the 
Harkin amendment, and he has 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have an amendment to my amendment that 
I send to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to make a 
modification to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will object for 
reasons I have discussed with Senator Harkin, any amendment to this 
bill will end the bill. It is a death knell for the bill. The 
modification also would have another delay even if it didn't kill the 
bill, even if it were passed and the House were able to adopt it. It 
requires regulations to be adopted which would take time. It would be a 
stopping and starting of the program. It would create a great deal of 
confusion.
  This is an extremely well-intended amendment. I give Senator Harkin a 
lot of credit for what he is aiming to do, but it cannot achieve its 
purpose the way it is drafted. The way it would be modified would take 
a significant period of time to be modified. It would result in a stop-
and-start situation of the Cash for Clunkers Program. So, reluctantly, 
I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator has 1 minute on his amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, in good faith last year, I tried to get 
this in the bill and it didn't work. I tried it again with this 
amendment. I was informed there was a problem with it, which I 
recognized. I tried to again in good faith offer a modification to it. 
My friend from Michigan is right; it does require some determinations 
by the Secretary which probably would take some time. I am not certain 
that is all that much of a reason to not allow it.

[[Page S8961]]

  I still believe there should be an income cap. But the way the 
amendment is now drafted, quite frankly, I couldn't even support it 
because it didn't do what I originally wanted to do. There was an error 
in drafting. I tried to amend it. I can't seem to get the job done 
because of the time constraint. There was an action on my amendment; 
therefore under the rules, I have to have consent to get it modified. I 
have heard an objection to that. Since I can't get----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Since I can't get it done, since I can't modify it, I 
move to table my own amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time remains on the amendment, so the motion 
to table will have to wait until the time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I will not have any time left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. The Senator has a right to table his amendment. I would 
simply say that while he is correct that his amendment would be better 
if it were modified, and he would have had no objection on our side to 
that modification, it still makes an important point and I think it 
would have been supported by many people on our side of the aisle. I, 
frankly, would vote against the motion to table myself because I think 
it does make an important point, and I think we should be able to 
debate it and dispose of it.
  The Senator has a right to table his amendment. I would urge those on 
our side to vote against the motion to table.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is in order now.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I move to table my amendment.
  Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2301, as Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe the Kyl amendment is in 
order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, automobile dealers view this program a 
little like ``A Tale of Two Cities''--the best of times and the worst 
of times. They are selling more cars, but they don't know if they are 
going to get paid from the Cash for Clunkers Program because there has 
been no ability to track the sales. As a result, we don't know whether 
we spent $1 billion, less than $1 billion, or more than $1 billion.
  My amendment simply calls a timeout. It says if the amount of money 
exceeds $1 billion, then appropriate the amount of money that is needed 
to pay the obligations on the deals that have already been made and 
qualified. Then set up a process to track the money in such a way that 
we can tell whether we have exceeded the next appropriated amount.
  That is the essence of the amendment. It asks for a study to 
determine whether there should be one other change; namely, a change to 
the particular fuel standard we are applying to the cars. Some believe 
it should be a slightly higher fuel standard.
  I hope my amendment will be adopted to call a timeout, pay the 
obligations we have already made, and determine a method to track the 
money in the future so that if we do this again, we know exactly how 
much we have spent, the dealers can get paid, and the customers have 
the assurance that their deal can go through.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. 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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on 
this amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. They have.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is there any time remaining in opposition?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 2301), as modified, was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and to 
lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S8962]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2302

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President I believe that the Gregg amendment is in 
order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Gregg amendment is the pending 
question.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I don't happen to agree with this 
proposal, but what I certainly don't agree with--and I assume most of 
my colleagues don't agree with--is that we should be paying for this by 
putting the debt on our children's backs. Yet that is exactly what is 
going to happen.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the House has been 
very forthright. He said he spoke to the White House, he spoke to the 
Speaker, and he said the funds with which this program is being funded 
were taken out of the stimulus, and what he is going to do is replenish 
the stimulus. So we are essentially going to borrow twice to do this 
program, and both times we are borrowing from our kids.
  My amendment simply enforces our ability to actually pay for this 
program, which is what we should do--No fig leaves, just a real 
exercise in actually paying for a program, rather than passing the bill 
on to our kids, as we seem to do around here so regularly. I hope 
people would vote for this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment would have an across-the-
board cut to the appropriations bill of $2 billion, including 
appropriations bills that have already passed. It is a recipe for chaos 
in the appropriations process. The pay-for is in the bill for this $2 
billion package.
  In addition to all of that, any amendment to this bill will kill the 
program. So if you want to kill the program as well as create havoc in 
the appropriations process, then you will vote for the Gregg amendment; 
otherwise, you will vote no.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I raise a point of order that the 
pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, pursuant to Section 904(c), I move to 
waive the 306 point of order, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the 
nays are 51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2304

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe the Coburn amendment is the 
next in order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is a simple amendment. Rather than 
throw great cars away, give them to poor people. One of the biggest 
problems we have with rural health care and health care associated with 
our citizens of color in this country is the fact that they do not have 
transportation to get their health care.
  Under this bill, already we will destroy $500 million worth of good 
automobiles. As we pass this bill we are going to destroy another $1 
billion worth of automobiles.
  It would seem to me, since the charitable organizations are so good 
at utilizing these cars and we have such a need, especially with the 
economic downturn we have, that we ought not be throwing them away and 
ruining them. What we ought to be doing is giving them to those who 
have greater need than those who are turning them back.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. 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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I raise a point of order that the 
pending amendment violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I move to waive the applicable section 
of the Budget Act with respect to my amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain

[[Page S8963]]


     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2303

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes equally divided 
prior to a vote on the Vitter amendment No. 2303.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It simply 
says the TARP bailout fund will end when we originally said it would 
end: December 31 of this year. Under the original TARP bill, the 
Treasury Secretary has the authority to extend it another almost full 
year, until October of 2010. We would take that authority away. We 
would retain that responsibility and say we will wind down the TARP 
bailout fund at the end of this year.
  Clearly, the crisis, the imminent collapse of the financial system, 
has passed and is not before us. If we are serious about the bailout 
being temporary, being necessary because of truly unusual 
circumstances, if we are serious about that, we will vote yes on this 
amendment and end TARP at the end of this year in an orderly way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment would terminate the program 
at the end of this year. While there are certainly very positive signs 
that the economy is improving, all of us are painfully aware of how 
much further we have to travel before the economy is truly back on its 
feet. The foreclosure rate and the unemployment rate are still 
troubling.
  This is not a request for additional money. There is about $170 
billion left in the TARP program. It would be premature and unwise for 
us to terminate a program without knowing yet that we have actually 
come out of difficult times. I urge colleagues to reject this 
amendment. What this does is sustain the program beyond December 31 of 
this year into October of next year. Then, hopefully, we won't need 
these resources. Hopefully, we won't have to use another nickel of this 
money. But I don't think we want to come back in February and March and 
all of a sudden have to restart a program such as this because we 
haven't achieved all the success we would like in getting our economy 
back on its feet.
  I say respectfully to my friend from Louisiana, I urge colleagues to 
reject the Vitter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 2303) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2306

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe the final amendment is now in 
order, the Isakson amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There is 2 minutes of 
debate divided equally on the amendment.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, very simply, this is the amendment to 
help our economy recover. The Senator from Washington, the Senator from 
Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking Committee, are cosponsors of 
the main bill. It provides a $15,000 tax credit for the purchase of any 
home in America during the next 12 months. It will make the difference. 
It does not do anything to the base bill.
  For those who would say we cannot do it because the House is gone, we 
can do anything if we want to. It is time we address the central core 
issue to our economy: the housing market.
  I urge all my friends to support the Isakson amendment to provide the 
$15,000 tax credit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is another well-intended amendment. It 
is an amendment, indeed, that many of us have voted for in a slightly 
different form in a different place. However, it would represent the 
death knell for this program. So if you believe the Cash for Clunkers 
Program is a successful program and should be extended, this amendment 
needs to be defeated and raised at a different point.
  We will not get the Isakson amendment into law by adopting it. All we 
will do is stop the Cash for Clunkers Program from continuing. That 
seems to me to be the choice, which is a fundamental one. I hope we 
defeat the Isakson amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of 
the Budget Act with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.

[[Page S8964]]

  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, pursuant to section 403(E)1 of the fiscal 
year 2010 budget resolution, S. Con Res. 13, I raise a point of order 
against the emergency designation provision contained in the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not debatable.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of 
the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 
37. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of the 
Car, Allowance Rebate System, CARS, commonly referred to as Cash for 
Clunkers. CARS provides both a direct and indirect economic benefit to 
the State of Ohio by supporting the manufacturing of automobiles, 
automotive parts suppliers, and auto dealers, as well as the many 
businesses that support these companies. This program is providing 
valuable jobs and much needed revenue--a direct stimulus--to the State. 
Furthermore, Ohio car buyers responded positively and Ohio has been one 
of the top recipients under the CARS program. That is why I am asking 
my colleagues to reject amendments that would prevent the program from 
operating until September when the House of Representatives is 
scheduled to reconvene. If the Senate adopts even one amendment, the 
bill will be on hold until the mid-September. In some instances, if 
these same amendments were considered as stand-alone legislation or as 
amendments to other legislation, I may have supported them, but because 
these amendments hold hostage the continuation of the CARS I will 
oppose anything that would keep the Senate from transferring these 
funds.
  The Senate's decision to continue funding the cash for clunkers 
program will allow consumers to purchase new cars, delivering a real 
economic stimulus to our Sates. As evidenced by the extraordinary 
response to the program thus far, this is a win-win. It provides much 
needed jobs and resources to our states and promotes fuel efficient 
cars to benefit our environment, reducing our dependence on foreign 
oil. I am thankful the additional $2 billion for this program is being 
taken from the already-enacted stimulus bill, which I voted against 
earlier this year. Unfortunately, programs that would provide real 
stimulus like cash for clunkers and robust highway and infrastructure 
investments were not part of the original stimulus package. These types 
of direct tangible investments provide not only jobs through dealers, 
manufacturers, and auto suppliers, but usable assets for taxpayers. I 
am hopeful that this program will continue to provide much-needed 
relief to the Ohio's automotive manufacturers.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, auto jobs form the backbone of American 
manufacturing, especially in the Midwest. Millions of Americans, and in 
my home--state of Missouri more than 200,000 workers, depend on the 
auto industry for their livelihoods.
  Unfortunately all of those jobs were at risk when the big three 
domestic auto companies almost went completely under.
  Recognizing the importance of this industry to our economy and 
millions of workers, the government acted to protect these auto jobs.
  One of those actions was to pass the Cash for Clunkers Program. I 
supported this program because I thought it would help save thousands 
of jobs at auto dealers, parts plant, and assembly plants.
  Also, this program was designed to help consumers with the cost of 
more fuel-efficient cars and, ultimately, in the long-term benefit the 
environment with reduced exhaust emissions.
  This is one government program that has actually exceeded everyone's 
expectation.
  Folks in Missouri and across the Nation have been flocking to once 
rather empty car lots.
  In fact, there were tens of thousands of new car purchases made 
through the program after only a week.

[[Page S8965]]

  Cash for Clunkers has given a much needed jump-start to dealers and 
the auto industry that have been suffering with the worst car sales in 
recent history.
  This program has benefitted consumers who would otherwise not be able 
to afford a new vehicle and has boosted small business dealers in rural 
and small communities across Missouri and the country.
  It is not to say that the program, like most government-run programs, 
has had an entirely smooth ride. I have heard from Missouri auto 
dealers who have been frustrated by government redtape, which has 
stalled some sales and created confusion among dealers and car buyers.
  This uncertainty has rightfully caused some heartburn for dealers who 
are required under the program to provide funding up front for the 
consumers and then must receive approval from the government before 
they receive reimbursement. Redtape and delays due to inadequate 
government resources to administer the program have left many dealers 
wondering if they will be left holding the bag.
  I have been disappointed and dismayed to learn that the Department of 
Transportation does not know how many commitments have been made and 
paid for by dealers. Thus, we cannot even be sure that the existing 
program will have enough money the meet the commitments.
  Under the legislation passed by the House, cash for clunkers would be 
extended and provided an additional $2 billion by using unspent funds 
from the so-called stimulus bill.
  I say so-called because so far it has only stimulated the growth of 
the deficit and the growth of government employment. Taking $2 billion 
from that program is the best way to see we get a boost to the economy, 
now, when we need it.
  Fully offsetting additional funding to extend the program is a 
critical requirement to ensure that we are not adding to the growing 
Federal deficit.
  I am very concerned about potential shell-games being reported in the 
media about Democratic leadership plans to backfill the stimulus bill 
in future appropriations.
  To be clear, my support for extending cash for clunkers is contingent 
upon the program not adding to our deficit and that it be temporary, 
not a bottomless pit for taxpayers.
  The purpose of cash for clunkers was to jump-start the auto industry 
and provide immediate and temporary help to get consumers back on car 
lots, not to provide a long-term subsidy to the industry and, thus I 
will not be supporting continued cash for clunkers.
  While cash for clunkers has provided a simulative jolt to get people 
onto car lots again, we cannot hang our hats on this program and expect 
to have a lasting recovery. I remain concerned about the credit 
markets, continuing job losses, and the rising likelihood of higher 
taxes and larger deficits under the spending plans proposed the, 
administration.
  Nevertheless, as a supporter of the initial $1 billion provided to 
cash for clunkers to jump-start the struggling auto industry, I believe 
that the program should be extended one last time as long as it is 
funded with unspent stimulus funds to ensure dealers are not on the 
hook for the cost of the rebates due to the government's management 
failures.
  This program was meant to jump-start, not subsidize, auto sales, so I 
support a one-time extension.
  Also, it is critical that the Obama administration make sure that 
bureaucratic hiccups don't turn this program into a nightmare for our 
dealers and consumers.
  The bottom line is that an extension paid for with unused stimulus 
dollars makes sense this one time since this program seems to have 
worked better then the misnamed Recovery Act.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this bill, which 
will provide additional funding to the popular Consumer Assistance to 
Recycle and Save or CARS program. While not perfect, CARS has 
encouraged Americans to trade in their older and less fuel-efficient 
vehicles while boosting new car sales and helping to revive local 
economies in Wisconsin and around the country, something that is sorely 
needed in these difficult economic times.
  CARS began almost 2 weeks ago and in that time, interest in CARS has 
far exceeded most initial expectations for the program. Despite some 
problems with implementation of the program, it should be temporarily 
extended to help ensure that Americans who still want to participate in 
the program can do so, and that deals which have already been made in 
reliance on the program can go through. At the same time, I hope the 
Department of Transportation will listen to the concerns from car 
dealers and consumers and make improvements to help ensure CARS 
operates more smoothly in the coming weeks.
  I am pleased that the Department of Transportation has fixed one 
problem it created in implementing CARS. When Congress created the CARS 
program earlier this year, it fully intended to ensure that consumers 
across the country who are in compliance with the statute's 
requirements, including provisions related to car insurance, be allowed 
to participate in the CARS program. The Transportation Department 
issued a final rule almost 2 weeks ago that set the guidelines for the 
CARS program. This rule included a requirement that individuals who 
wanted to trade in their vehicles had to demonstrate proof of car 
insurance for at least one year prior to the trade-in, a provision that 
conflicted with statutory language stating that a trade-in vehicle be 
``continuously insured consistent with the applicable State law.'' 
Currently, Wisconsin and New Hampshire do not require individuals to 
purchase car insurance and it was estimated that Transportation's rule 
would have affected up to 15 percent of Wisconsin drivers who legally 
did not have car insurance, but were in full compliance with Wisconsin 
State laws.
  I wrote to the Department of Transportation and spoke with Secretary 
LaHood to urge the Department to correct its misinterpretation of the 
CARS statutory language. I am pleased to have been joined in the effort 
by members of the Wisconsin and New Hampshire delegations as well as 
some of the lead authors of the Cash for Clunkers program including 
Senator Stabenow and Representative Dingell. The Department listened to 
our concerns and, last week, it announced that it had reexamined the 
statutory language of CARS and concluded that the initial rule it had 
issued unfairly penalized Wisconsin drivers who were in compliance with 
Wisconsin law. The Transportation Department further announced that 
trade-in vehicles in Wisconsin would be exempt from the 1-year 
insurance requirement thereby ensuring that Wisconsinites who meet the 
law's other eligibility requirements can participate in the CARS 
program. While all Wisconsin drivers will be required to have car 
insurance beginning in June 2010, this action by the Transportation 
Department is a sensible fix for Wisconsinites who are in compliance 
with state law and who seek to participate in this temporary program.
  Even with a number of Wisconsinites erroneously excluded from the 
program initially and some technical difficulties, as of August 5, 
several thousand Wisconsinites had participated in the program and 
dealers are expected to receive reimbursements for over $24 million 
that they have credited to Wisconsinites buying new cars under this 
program. On a per capita basis, this level of requested vouchers places 
Wisconsin fifth amongst all the States. Demand for the program remains 
strong in Wisconsin and across the country and will soon completely 
outstrip the supply of vouchers currently available, which is why we 
need to act to provide additional funding.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish today to support providing an 
additional $2 billion to allow for the extension of the car allowance 
rebate system, CARS, otherwise known as cash for clunkers.
  During the original debate on the cash for clunkers concept in the 
Appropriations Committee, proponents of the program promised that it 
would have two major benefits. The first was that it would replace 
older, less fuel-efficient cars with new models that are more fuel-
efficient, thus helping the environment and decreasing our dependence 
on imported oil. The second was that it would provide a much needed 
boost to plummeting auto sales in the United States.
  The good news is that we now have hard data we can use to evaluate

[[Page S8966]]

whether the program has lived up to its proponent's promises. And the 
very good news is that clearly, it has. In fact, the program has 
exceeded expectations.
  Based on approximately 184,000 dealer transactions that have so far 
been recorded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
NHTSA, we know the following:
  CARS transactions are generating a 60-percent increase in vehicle 
fuel economy. The average of the vehicles being turned in have a fuel 
economy rating of 15.8 miles per gallon, while the average of the 
vehicles being sold have a fuel economy rating of 25.3 miles per 
gallon. This means the average CARS transaction is leading to an 
increase in fuel efficiency of 9.5 miles per gallon. I think we can all 
agree that is a very significant improvement. How significant? The 
savings in gas purchases alone are estimated to be $700 a year for the 
typical consumer. Clearly, the CARS program has lived up to its promise 
to put more fuel-efficient cars on the road.
  As for the second promise--that this program would provide a much 
needed boost to automobile sales in the U.S.--the Washington Post 
reported the following on August 4: ``U.S. auto sales rose to their 
highest levels of the year in July as consumers rushed to trade in 
older vehicles under a government incentive program that has become so 
popular it is in danger of running out of money. Automakers issued 
their sales reports Monday, raising hope that the sagging auto industry 
is headed for a recovery, although some analysts cautioned that a 
turnaround would still be slow. Ford said its sales were up 2.4 percent 
over the same period a year ago, its first monthly increase in two 
years. The automaker attributed much of the gain to the Cash for 
Clunkers program, which allows consumers to receive rebates for turning 
in older cars for more fuel-efficient models.''
  There can be no doubt that the CARS program is succeeding beyond 
expectations. In fact, the program has been such a hit with the 
American people that it has run out of funding much sooner than 
anticipated. The President has proposed, the House has passed, and I 
fully support, the reprogramming of $2 billion in Recovery Act funding 
to enable the extension of the CARS program.
  With this extension, we can continue to put more fuel-efficient 
automobiles on the road, which reduces pollution and our reliance on 
imported oil, and we can continue to provide a much needed boost to the 
auto industry, which helps the broader economy and saves jobs. At a 
time when our economy is in need of a jump-start, cash for clunkers is 
an undeniable success. I urge my colleagues to join me in providing the 
additional funding needed to continue this worthy program.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to make some observations 
about the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program, more 
commonly known as cash for clunkers.
  When Congress first passed this program in June, I evaluated the 
merits and the arguments and chose to support it, because I believed it 
would provide a prompt shot in the arm to our ailing economy. I 
continue to believe that the program's goals of reducing the 
environmental impact of automobiles on the road and producing economic 
stimulus are good ones.
  However as we debate whether to infuse this program with another $2 
billion I would urge that we be patient and wait until all the facts 
are in, before rushing forward with a tripling of the program's overall 
cost. Significant claims have been made about the average increased 
fuel economy and resulting financial savings that will result from car 
purchases made through the program. The administration has used these 
claims to push for the program's expansion, yet Federal agencies have 
not yet made available--to the American people and to the Congress--the 
appropriate data to support these claims.
  If you have picked up a newspaper in the past few weeks, the sudden 
popularity of the program is clear. Newspaper headlines have 
consistently noted the program is rapidly running out of money and that 
car purchases are well above where they were at this time last year. In 
my own State of Vermont, car dealers have reported having difficulty 
keeping up with demand for new cars that meet the program's 
requirements. But while we know that cars are moving off sales lots and 
onto the road, we have yet to receive enough details about the current 
sales data to know the true story of whether this program is working as 
intended.
  Recent reports on the program have indicated that funding was about 
to run out, yet the number of actual car sales through the program was 
far lower than the program allowed for. Further, many dealers have 
noted that hundreds of thousands of dollars in program vouchers from 
the government have yet to be paid. If this is in fact the case, we 
should demand that the management of this program be ironed out before 
pumping billions more into it. Are we sure that this the best way to 
spend $2 billion right now, if it is to be spent? There are many worthy 
and pressing purposes to which such significant sums could be 
allocated.
  Positive indications about the direction of the economy are emerging. 
Today we learned that the number of Americans filing for unemployment 
dropped to its lowest level since January. The Cash for Clunkers 
Program may prove to be a factor in helping our country emerge from 
this recession, and I certainly hope that is the case.
  But the public release of information about this car rebate program 
is necessary to ensure that both the Congress and the American people 
can make well-informed judgments about the merits of continuing this 
program in these economically challenging times. If the administration 
is unwilling or unable to provide this information before the Senate 
votes on additional funding, I will be unable to support the program's 
expansion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of H.R. 3435.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have one more vote. I appreciate 
everyone's cooperation. We have accomplished a great deal this whole 
work period. This week has really been a productive one. I appreciate 
everyone's help. The Republican leader and I have worked hard to get it 
to this point on Thursday night at 8 o'clock. That is hard to 
comprehend.
  We will come back after the break and have a vote Tuesday evening. We 
will keep people posted as to what is going to happen. We are going to 
move to appropriations bills as quickly as we can, and we have other 
things to do throughout the work period. I hope everybody has a great 
work period at home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish everybody well during August 
while visiting your constituents, and I look forward to being back here 
after Labor Day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank everyone for keeping this 
successful program going. Have a great August.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the third reading and 
passage of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 3435) was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page S8967]]

  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The bill (H.R. 3435) was passed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. STABENOW. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. What is the status, Mr. President?

                          ____________________