Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business on health care. It has been the topic of conversation while the Defense bill has been negotiated behind the scenes. I wished to talk about health care reform because it is the issue of the day. I think America is focusing on this issue now, and I am so glad they are because the more we learn about the proposals that are being made in the House and in the committees on the Senate side, the more concerns are being raised by the American people and by the experts who are studying the proposals. What I am concerned about is the proposals that have been put forward from the Senate committee, and what is being put forward on the House side are proposals that are going to be the beginning of a government health care system that is modeled after Canada and Great Britain. What we are looking at is more government, more taxes, more expensive health care, and what we see less of is quality health care, less choice, less reimbursement to hospitals and Medicare and Medicaid; exactly the wrong direction. We have hospitals all over my home State of Texas that treat indigent patients and patients who cannot pay. Every one of our hospitals, rural and urban, gets extra help from Medicare and Medicaid for doing these services. The problem is that people go into the emergency rooms for primary care, care they could get from a doctor in a doctor's office if they had health care coverage. But they don't, so they wait until their diseases are much more progressed, and they go to an emergency room. What does that do? It makes the cost of health care higher for everyone. It makes the cost of health care continue to go up, and it raises premiums for people who have coverage. It costs taxpayers who have to pay for the emergency room care in the form of tax increases. What we are looking at now is a proposal that will take money out of the hospitals. Every one of the hospitals in Texas will have lower reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid, every one. That is estimated to cost more taxpayer dollars to cover the people who are going to the emergency room. Rural hospitals, particularly, may have to close their doors. I am hearing from rural hospital administrators that they don't have the money to absorb these cuts. They have a choice. They can cut services, or they can close hospitals--neither of which is an outcome any of us wants to see. In addition, there are Medicaid requirements for States. Every Governor, Democratic or Republican, is saying: What are you thinking? More Federal mandates that are unfunded? That is why people are so frustrated with the Federal Government right now, more unfunded mandates. The estimate is that it would cost my home State of Texas $3 billion a year to absorb just the Medicaid unfunded mandate that is in the proposed bill making its way through Congress. There has been an urgency. Many of the people on the floor here, as well as the President, are saying: We have a deadline. We have an August deadline, and we must pass this bill by August. We are talking about a complete overturning of our health care system, not reform. Reform is what we all want. We need reform in our health care system. We need lower costs and more people covered. That is not what the bill going through Congress will do. It is a complete upheaval of the health care system. It will be a single-payer government system that will start encroaching on and displacing the private health care people know and that provides the quality assurance we expect. The private health care system will start being displaced by a big government system that will be cheaper but will also give fewer choices and less service. That is the concern so many people are beginning to have as more and more comes out about this health care plan. In addition, there is an effort being made to pay for this big government takeover of health care. What are the options on the table? This is what is being proposed: that we will fine employers who do not offer private health care to their employees. That is like saying: OK, if you hire more people and you don't offer health care, your fines will go up. So that is going to discourage the hiring of people at a time when unemployment is at a record high. We should be encouraging people, especially in small business, to hire people. We want to create jobs, not cut them. Instead, we are going to increase taxes on small business. As much as 45 percent is being proposed on small business. That will make small business taxes higher than corporate taxes. Corporate taxes in America are among the highest in the world. Yet we are going to add on top of the 45 percent that the small businesses will pay, 35 percent for corporate. And then you fine the businesses that don't offer health care. It is almost as though we are in a self- fulfilling death wish. In the unemployment atmosphere in which we find ourselves, all of a sudden we are going to pass new taxes and new fines on small businesses which are the economic engine of America. It is small business that creates jobs, not big business, not government. Big business does some, but mostly it is small business growing that creates economic vitality. It is certainly not government. When we get to bigger and bigger government, we are going to find ourselves in a spiral where half the people are working to support the other half of the population. It will go down from there. It is important to read what the Mayo Clinic said about the House bill. They said: Although there are some positive provisions in the bill, the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite. This is the Mayo Clinic, one of the premier health care providers in the country. In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient- focused or results-oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever, a change in Medicare payment policy, to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. The Mayo Clinic goes on: Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable cost, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States. Today 40 percent of physicians turn away Medicaid patients because the system is poorly administered and has a weak record of reimbursement. We know that billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted on fraud and abuse in Medicare every year. Are we going to emulate a program that doctors are walking away from and that is costing billions of wasted dollars to the taxpayers? This is not responsible governing. We need to take our time. Republicans have come forward and will continue to come forward with alternatives, alternatives that don't break the backs of taxpayers, that don't break the backs of small business people, that give the quality health care Americans have come to expect and should. We have alternatives that are responsible. Small business health plans, for one, would be the best approach to this, because more people being covered means lower cost for everyone. What does every family in this country want? They want a job to support their families, and they want health care coverage for their children. We can give them that by giving affordable opportunities for small businesses to give health care coverage options to their employees. That is what Americans want. They don't want a big government health care system that is going to rob them of quality and cost them more in the meantime. I appreciate the opportunity to talk today about this important issue and why we must take time to do this right. If we completely overturn our health care system, we may never be able to get it back. We may never be able to recover. We can do this right, if we take the time and if it is truly bipartisan, if Republicans will have a seat at the table. They didn't have a seat at the table when the Senate committee voted its bill out taking two Republican amendments out of 45 offered. That is not bipartisanship. That is being polite and saying no. What we want is to have real options that will keep the quality, keep the choice, keep the private sector employment in our system and give families a chance to have good jobs with health care coverage. We can do that, if we will get together on a bipartisan basis and go forward in a positive way. The bills coming out of the House and Senate right now, with virtually no Republican input, are not right for America. That is why we are saying: Let's go back to the drawing board. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, today I rise to speak and commemorate a great milestone; that is, Apollo 11, the anniversary of its landing. Forty years ago today, on a hot Sunday afternoon in Texas, three astronaut families and close friends in the Houston suburb of El Lago were gathered around television sets in the privacy of their homes watching grainy broadcasts and listening to the sounds from a small loudspeaker wired from Mission Control conveying the voices of astronaut Charlie Duke's conversation with the Apollo 11 astronauts during the final moments leading to the first landing on the Moon. It was an intensely personal experience for all of them and yet one shared by much of the world. Everyone was glued to their televisions, those who could get to a television at that moment, and waiting for the word, wherever they were. It was 3:18 p.m. Houston time when Neil Armstrong announced: ``Houston, Tranquility Base here, The Eagle has landed.'' A baseball game in Yankee Stadium in New York was stopped, and the announcement made that America had put men on the Moon. The audience erupted in applause and then burst into singing ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' In college dormitories, in workplaces, in living rooms across the world, people gathered to watch this broadcast of the ``giant leap for mankind'' that Neil Armstrong made, and Buzz Aldrin following him onto the surface of the Moon, that attracted and compelled millions of people throughout the world. The Apollo 11 landing is forever etched in the minds of those who watched it or heard it. They are bound together in the history of mankind in a stunning milestone in the advancement of humanity. The Apollo Program gave us the very first view through the eyes of human beings, captured and transmitted by their cameras, of the Earth, our own spaceship against the infinite backdrop of space. It gave us great advancement in technology, new industries, capabilities benefitting everyone on Earth, especially medical science and quality of life. Most importantly, it gave us a new vision of ourselves as a nation and the sense of our ability to accomplish things that once seemed utterly impossible and probably were not even thought about but yet had just happened. The anniversary we celebrate today comes at a time when we need to be reminded that we can overcome challenges and achieve great things when we are committed and dedicated and prepared to step up to the plate. We face enormous challenges as a nation and as part of the global community: finding solutions to our current economic crisis; ensuring our national security; finding solutions to the many domestic issues we face in health care, unemployment, energy, and the environment. What many may not recall is that in May of 1961, President Kennedy spoke to Congress on ``urgent national needs.'' He spoke of issues strikingly similar to those we face today. He began with a focus on ``the great battleground for the defense of freedom'' being in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East, and of enemies of freedom whose ``aggression is more often concealed than open.'' Remember this is 1961, and the President is talking about issues that relate to us today. Yet, he said, as he turned to the economy, he described the need ``to turn recession into recovery'' and meeting ``the task of abating unemployment and achieving a bold use of our resources.'' He spoke of shoring up our international allegiances and providing aid to developing countries seeking to establish themselves as democratic states. He spoke of reshaping our military to better meet unconventional threats and mobility and flexibility in response and the need to ensure effective and accurate intelligence. This sounds so familiar because we are talking about a Moon landing, but yet we are facing all of these domestic, international, and security issues at the same time. But yet we do not lose that zeal to command something that is beyond the parameters we have known. President Kennedy spoke of the need to expand efforts in civil defense, what we might now call homeland security, to ensure the safety of our citizens at home. He spoke of renewed calls for arms control and reductions in nuclear arsenals across the globe. Finally, he focused his concluding remarks on the challenge of space exploration saying: Now is the time . . . for a great new American enterprise-- time for this Nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement which, in many ways, may hold the key to our future on earth. He went on to use those words that are perhaps the most familiar from that speech. I believe this Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. President Kennedy made that commitment for U.S. leadership in space and set the highest possible goal for establishment of that leadership with the Apollo Program at a time when the Nation faced challenges not unlike those we face today. I believe he did so because he saw that space exploration was something that could elevate the entire national spirit and enhance its broader economy and national security. As we celebrate the anniversary of the lunar landing, we honor the vision, the courage, and the accomplishments of all of the men and women of Apollo, whether astronauts, engineers, flight directors, or assembly workers, and their families. We thank them for two generations of excellence and leadership in science and technology. How do we best honor that legacy? We can do it by continuing our Nation's commitment to space exploration and to sustain the leadership role they won for us in those early pioneering days. We must recognize, as President Kennedy did, that space exploration was an important and urgent national need, not an activity to be short-changed or sacrificed in the face of other pressing economic and security concerns. We must make the investment needed to ensure that the United States has the ability to launch humans into space. Today, we are looking at a few more missions of our space shuttle, and then we are looking at up to 5 years in which America will not be able to put men and women in space at all. This is, as Charles Krauthammer said in a recent article: Five years in which we are going to beg Russia or even China for space on their spaceships to be able to put men and women in space. Forty years ago America did something that changed our country and the world. It gave us new technology. It gave us the dominance of space for our national security purposes. It gave us the ability to have satellite-guided missiles that can now go into a window from miles away and stop the collateral damage and the death of innocent humans when we are in a war situation. It has given us so much. Forty years later we are sitting here with a space program where we are going to have 5 years in which we cannot put men and women into space with our own vehicle. That is not what we should be celebrating on this 40th anniversary. We should be celebrating a renewal of the commitment to space exploration. We should be celebrating that we are going to finish out an international space station in which many of our international partners have invested billions, as have we, and that we are committed to putting people in that space station that is now designated as a national laboratory--our part is--to have the scientific exploration capability to be able to take the next step in medical research that cannot be done on Earth because we have that national lab. The idea that we would make that investment and then not be able to put people there for 5 years is unthinkable. That is what it is, it is unthinkable. So I want to remember the words of President Kennedy, and I have to say I want to remember another speech that President Kennedy made. It was at Rice University. He was talking about why we are committed to putting people on the Moon, why we are committed to things that are so visionary for the future. He said: Why would we put people into space? Why would Rice play Texas? Not because it is easy but because it is hard. That very next year, Rice tied the University of Texas in football. It was not in the same league as putting men on the Moon. It was not. But he had the vision and he also had the humor to convey it. He knew what made our country the best country in the world was the vision of doing things that would be seemingly impossible and having the capacity and commitment to do it. That is what President Kennedy led us to do 40 years ago. Today we must renew that commitment. That is the only way we can show we are worthy of all that has gone on before us that led to Neil Armstrong's famous words: ``One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' I hope with all of the remembrances we are making that the real effort that will be made is what Charlie Bolden said when he was in our committee last week. The chairman of the committee asked Charlie: ``NASA's deteriorating. Tell me why we should support it?'' Charlie Bolden, the new Administrator of NASA, said: I am committed to doing it and doing it right. We have to have the commitment of Congress to make it happen. He knows what is right. He is a former astronaut, he is an engineer, he is a great Texan who is a visionary and the person who can implement that vision, and we are going to support him in every way. I hope all of my colleagues in Congress will do the same thing on the eve of the anniversary of one of the great achievements of America and all mankind. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from New Jersey because, of course, Buzz Aldrin is going to be at that commemoration tomorrow and has been one of the leaders in trying to make sure America does not flag in its enthusiasm and commitment to space exploration and all that it will bring us. So I thank the Senator for remembering Buzz Aldrin as well because he was a great astronaut and one of the leaders still today for that very important mission.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. Amendment No. 1618

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Snowe, Ensign, DeMint, Thune, Wicker, Isakson, Vitter, Brownback, Martinez, and Johanns, we would like to thank Captain Harl Romine for his service to the Nation and the U.S. Coast Guard. Captain Romine has a long and distinguished career with the Coast Guard. From his enrollment in the U.S. Coast Guard Academy though his retirement later this month, Captain Romine has spent the better part of the last three decades serving his countrymen and protecting our Nation in the U.S. Coast Guard. During his service in the Coast Guard Captain Romine has exhibited the best characteristics of a Coast Guard officer: a deep dedication to duty, unsurpassed professionalism, superior technical and operational expertise, and compassion as a pilot, leader, mentor, and friend. Captain Romine has a distinguished career that is worthy of recognition by this Senate. Harl Romine--the son of a career Coast Guard officer--attended high school in Chantilly, VA, and graduated from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1985 with a bachelor of science degree in government. Immediately following graduation he joined the fleet and served as a deck watch officer, law enforcement boarding officer, and weapons officer aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter CHEROKEE. Upon completing his tour on the CHEROKEE, Captain Romine attended Navy Flight School to begin his career as a Coast Guard aviator a role in which he would truly distinguish himself. Upon receiving his ``wings of gold'' at flight school in Pensacola, Captain Romine began a career of service that would take him from the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico to frigid seas of the Gulf of Alaska. His first aviation assignment was to the Coast Guard's largest and busiest air station--Air Station Clearwater, FL, where he served as a duty standing pilot in the HH-3F ``Pelican'' helicopter performing a wide range of missions in the Atlantic and Caribbean regions, including Search and Rescue and drug enforcement operations. In 1991 he was assigned to Air Station Kodiak where he continued to fly the HH-3F and then transitioned to the HH-60J ``Jayhawk.'' Four years later, he was transferred to Coast Guard Group Astoria, OR, where he served as the administration officer, supervising the administrative and personnel support for over 300 Coast Guard personnel. In 1998, Captain Romine was assigned as the HH-60J standardization branch chief at the Coast Guard's Aviation Training Center in Mobile, AL. The young pilots trained under the tutelage of Captain Romine were a large part of the impressive Coast Guard Team that performed so heroically in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In 2001, Captain Romine qualified in the HC-130H ``Hercules'' and returned to Kodiak, AK, where he served as the operations officer for Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak. During this tour he maintained a qualification in both the HH-60J ``Jayhawk'' and the HC-130 ``Hercules'' airframes and has the unique distinction of standing duty in both airframes during the same week and successfully executing a search and rescue case in both airframes during that week. In 2004, Captain Romine received the ultimate honor and demonstration of the Coast Guard's trust in his abilities, when he received orders to serve as the commanding officer of Coast Guard Air Station Sitka, AK. At the heart of his career of distinguished service is commitment to rescuing those in distress. Over his career Captain Romine has personally flown, coordinated or supervised over 800 search and rescue cases resulting in over 600 lives saved. When Americans watch with pride as an orange helicopter plucks shipwrecked mariners from an icy sea or pulls stranded men and women off of roof tops in a flooded city, they should all know that it is men and women like Harl Romine who are piloting the aircraft risking their lives to save someone else's. Captain Romine's service has not gone unrecognized by his commanders. For his distinguished and heroic service, he has been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal, four Coast Guard Commendation Medals and three Coast Guard Achievement Medals. Finally, for the last 3 years, Captain Romine has distinguished himself while serving as a Coast Guard fellow on the Senate Commerce Committee's Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee. With the same technical expertise and devotion to duty demonstrated throughout his career as an aviator, Captain Romine earned the respect of all who have worked with him and has been an invaluable member of the Commerce Committee staff and will be sorely missed. On July 17, Captain Romine will be retiring from the Coast Guard and will be bringing his impressive and distinguished career in the Coast Guard to an end. We would be remiss if we did not thank his family for ``loaning'' Harl to the Coast Guard for so many years. Life in the Coast Guard places great stress on families as well as servicemen. We want to thank Harl's wife Laura, and his sons Hank, Carson, and Sonny for all the sacrifices they have made. Throughout his service to our Nation, whether standing the watch, teaching the next generation of pilots who now stand the watch, or commanding those who protected our Nation's mariners, Captain Romine has upheld the highest traditions of the Coast Guard. We would like to take this opportunity to personally commend Captain Romine for his service to our Nation, the Coast Guard and the Senate and thank him for all he has done in service to his country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the update on the Chrysler and GM bankruptcy and their impact on the auto dealer community. Almost 4 weeks ago, when we were considering the supplemental appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to provide at least 60 days for any dealer being terminated by an auto manufacturer receiving TARP funding to wind down its operations and sell its inventory. My amendment was in response to the letter sent to 789 Chrysler dealers May 13, 2009, informing them they were being terminated on June 9--3 weeks later-- with no assistance for auto inventory, parts, or special tools. I found that unacceptable. And you know, a number of the people who heard my amendment on the floor stepped up and said: I want to cosponsor that amendment. By the end of the day, we had 38 bipartisan cosponsors on the amendment to give these valued members of our communities at least 60 days to wind down their businesses. As a result of that amendment and thorough discussions with Chrysler president Jim Press and the Auto Task Force, Chrysler responded with a commitment to facilitate the transfer of inventory and parts for the terminated dealers. As soon as we returned from Memorial Day recess, Chairman Rockefeller and I called a Commerce Committee hearing specifically on the impact of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcy on the auto dealer community. This hearing provided the first outlet for dealers to express their opinions on how they were being treated in this process, and it gave Chrysler and GM CEOs the opportunity to explain their reasoning for the termination of literally thousands of dealerships across the country. We pressed the auto manufacturer executives to reconsider how they were treating these independent business men and women, and we sought progress reports on their commitments to me, our committee, and this body to provide a softer landing for terminated dealerships. In response to the concerns we raised in that hearing, Chrysler did take another step forward on behalf of its terminated dealers by formally guaranteeing that every piece of inventory at these dealerships would be purchased at cost, minus inspection and transportation fees. So they made the promise after the Memorial Day recess that they would buy every car. This reassuring news, of course, was welcome to the dealer body, but we still had concerns. I continued to push Chrysler for assurances regarding parts and equipment. The Commerce Committee sought additional answers on transparency, dealer reentry, rural access, and continuation agreements in both Chrysler and General Motors. On Monday, I received a letter that I thought was very positive from Chrysler, acknowledging the need for assurances on parts. They have now guaranteed 100 percent of the parts inventory for terminated dealers. So we have a situation here where they did listen. They eventually said they would buy all of the cars that were still left in inventory, and now, of course, they are going to buy the parts. Of course, the dealers that were being terminated had no use for the parts which they had already purchased, and so I think that was a fair ending to that dilemma. I also wish to point out another part of the answer to the Commerce Committee letter, which is on dealer terminations and market reentry. One of the things that came out in our hearing is that in some places all of the dealerships in the area were being closed, yet we had word that there were new people coming in seeking financing or a new dealership in the same place. That didn't quite ring right with us, and so we did ask for assurances that any dealer that was terminated would have some ability to come back in if another dealership was going to be put in that area. And here is what Mr. Press said in the letter of June 12, 2009: Chrysler Group LLC will commit to provide nonretained dealers with an opportunity for first consideration of new dealerships that the company may contemplate. We sent the same request for information to the General Motors CEO, and his answer was: You have asked about situations where GM will authorize the establishment of a new dealership near the location where a current, profitable dealer has been asked to wind down operations. It is not our plan for current dealerships to be wound down only to open up new dealerships. Rather, our plan is to reduce overall dealer count. However, in those rare instances where we do open a new dealership, in an area previously served by a winding down dealer, we commit to provide advance notice to former dealers and allow them an advanced opportunity to apply to run the new dealership. I think that is a step in the right direction, and I hope that will be followed through on in a legitimate and positive way because it would be the most cruel cut for a dealer that has been closed--a dealer that is profitable--to all of a sudden have a new dealer come in and open on the same ground or in the same area as the dealer that was closed at great loss. Remember, we have a dealer now with a huge piece of real estate. These auto dealerships are big lots because they have all these cars on them. So they are big pieces of real estate, and they are big buildings that are generally suited just for the purpose of an automobile showroom, and they have been left or sort of stuck with this real estate and stuck with all of the other equipment and things you have to have to run a business. So I think it is untenable for us to just close that person down and then 3 months later suddenly have a new person come in without all of those expenses and have the opportunity to open a new dealership. So I thought that was a very important part of the letter and commitment that is being made. But, of course, the commitment has to be followed through with--a responsible advance notice and a fair hearing for the dealer that has gone out of business to be able to come back in. I commend Chrysler for heeding the calls of Members of Congress and the dealer community and responding in a way that does give additional support to the dealers. General Motors, meanwhile, did sit down with the National Auto Dealers Association after our Commerce Committee hearing to work out concerns with the supplemental agreements continuing dealers were asked to sign. I commend GM for making concessions during those discussions, and I hope they will continue that positive dialog and interaction as the GM dealer network seeks additional information, support, and assistance. I will continue to work with the auto manufacturers to provide our dealer communities with the support and assistance they need in this very challenging time. I am worried about what is happening to many communities in my State and all over America because so often auto dealers are such a pillar of the community. They are very community oriented. They advertise, they support the Little League, they support the United Way, and they support the high school football programs. They are community citizens, and they are always the first one to step up when the community needs something. It has been stated that closing these dealerships is necessary, even where it is the only dealership in town and even when it is profitable. But the dealer takes all of the risk. They buy the cars, they buy the parts, they buy the special equipment, they have the real estate costs. They take the risks, not the manufacturer. I am not convinced that cutting down on the number of dealerships is the most productive thing for this economy today. We are trying to keep jobs. We are trying to keep communities going. We are trying to keep our economy steady and growing. Why we are closing down dealers and putting people out of jobs when they are profitable and contributing to the community is, frankly, lost on me. In fact, I asked Mr. Ron Bloom, who is a member of the Auto Task Force, at a Banking Committee hearing after the Commerce Committee hearing. I said: Why did the task force ask both GM and Chrysler to go back to the drawing board and eliminate more dealerships than their original plan? He acknowledged they did this. Again, he gave us the argument that fewer dealerships will be better for sales of these cars and trucks. I still, I am honest to admit, do not understand why he believes that; why Mr. Bloom or the Auto Task Force or GM or Chrysler believe when the dealers take the risk, and they are profitable, that it will increase sales to eliminate those dealerships. I certainly do not understand how the task force, which is part of the White House, would not see that this is going to hurt the economy in the long run--putting people out of jobs, thousands of people out of jobs. It is counterintuitive to me. However, it is being done. All we are trying to do is help the people who are being shut down to have the first rights to new dealerships that would open, and to make sure they are treated as fairly as possible. You cannot say it is fair because getting 3 weeks' notice to shut down an auto dealership is not fair. GM has given a longer time period, but although the GM company is saying: You will have until next year, 2010, to shut down your dealerships, yet the ones that have gotten the notice that they are going to be closed under GM are being told they cannot buy any new cars to sell. They can wind down the inventory they have, but they cannot stay in business until 2010 if they cannot get access to new automobiles and parts. It does not seem as though that is going to work very well either. I am hoping GM is going to also be a little more responsible in trying to help those that are being closed, with some ability to wind down in a more constructive way. As we continue these discussions between the dealer community and the auto manufacturers, I certainly hope we will be able to keep track of the progress. I would like to continue to get the progress reports, to see how these automobile companies are doing, and to get input from the dealers. It has been a very tough blow to them, especially those that did not see it coming because they were profitable, or like one of my constituents who had a profitable dealership in a location in Galveston County for years and years and years and then was told that he was going to be closed, even though he has dealerships in other parts of the Houston area, he was being closed in Galveston County and, of course, Galveston was struck by a terrible hurricane--Ike--last year and his business was down in the Galveston location. That is not surprising. Many people have not been able to move back to Galveston County because their homes were destroyed and they have no ability to live in Galveston County anymore. At least until very recently there was no opportunity for my constituent to appeal to General Motors because they were going to lose all their rights, if they appealed, to any of the concessions that were being made to closing dealers. It is a very troubling situation. I think we are making progress. I think GM and Chrysler are doing better with regard to the dealers, and I hope they will continue to understand these are important parts of communities all over America, these franchises that they have put out. They have been encouraged to buy inventory to try to help the companies not to go into bankruptcy, and then when they did go into bankruptcy they were sort of left high and dry. I think it is our responsibility--particularly in the case of GM and Chrysler, because they are getting taxpayer dollars--that they should have a little more concern about the overall economy because it is tax dollars that are propping them up. I ask unanimous consent the letters that Senator Rockefeller and I received from Mr. Henderson and Mr. Press, of GM and Chrysler respectively, be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do object.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object on behalf of the minority because they have not yet had time to clear this on our side, but certainly we will work with you going forward to be able to expedite this nomination.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr President, I submit pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate the following congressionally directed spending item that I requested during consideration of H. R. 2346, the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriations bill, and I ask that it be printed in the Record. The material follows. For purposes of qualification for loans made under the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program as allowed under Public Law 111-5 relating to disaster declaration DR-1791 (issued September 13, 2008) the base period for tax determining loss of revenue may be fiscal year 2009 or 2010. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate the following congressionally directed spending item that I requested during consideration of H. R. 2346, the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriations bill, and I ask that it be printed in the Record. The material follows. For areas affected under FEMA-1791-DR, 100 percent federal funding under the Public Assistance Program for debris removal, 90 percent federal funding for all other categories of public assistance, and 90 percent federal funding for Hazard Mitigation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I offer my best wishes to the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, who just celebrated his 80th birthday. Dr. Billington became the Librarian of Congress in 1987 after being nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate. If you read his confirmation testimony closely you can see the seeds for the direction he wanted to take the Library of Congress. It was Dr. Billington's vision for what the Library of Congress could be for current and future generations and his effective management that steered that great institution into the digital age. Because of his leadership, the Library today collects a diversity of material in both conventional and digital formats. Dr. Billington refers to this as ``adding without subtracting,'' and it is now a model for archival institutions. But simply collecting and preserving this material is not enough. It was his insistence, through programs such as the National Digital Library and World Digital Library, that this goldmine of information be shared much more widely with researchers, educators, and the general public both here on Capitol Hill and online via the Library's renowned Web site that makes it so useful. I know how much Jim Billington reveres the Library's role of service to Congress and the American people. He works tirelessly to attract Members to visit the Library. It has been my pleasure to co-host with him several dinners in recent years for my colleagues which gave them a clearance to see some of the incomparable Library of Congress exhibits, such as Creating the U.S., Jefferson's Library, and Winston Churchill, in the magnificent surroundings of the Jefferson Building. Formation of the Madison Council, the Library's first ever philanthropic and advisory body, was Dr. Billington's idea which he carried out with great energy and success. The Madison Council has been invaluable in bringing priceless collections to the Library and augmenting appropriated funding. Finally, I applaud Dr. Billington for instituting and cosponsoring with First Lady Laura Bush the National Book Festival since 2001, in which I have had the good fortune of participating as an author. The National Book Festival, modeled on the Texas Book Festival initiated in the 1990s by Laura Bush, has been a very popular annual event in Washington and has done much to promote reading and the creativity of America's writers. Jim Billington is truly a national treasure. He is a man of great intellect and leadership. I want to thank him for all he has done at the Library of Congress and throughout his long career of public service. I am happy to call him my friend, and I wish him all the best on his 80th birthday. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I now have 20 cosponsors of amendment No. 1189. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Klobuchar, Senator Cardin, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Brownback, Senator Roberts, Senator Grassley, Senator Burr, Senator Johanns, and Senator Schumer as cosponsors of amendment No. 1189.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bennett, Bingaman, and Kerry be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1189.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Klobuchar as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1189.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I add these cosponsors because more and more of our Senators are learning what has happened to these dealerships that have been notified by Chrysler that they have 3 weeks to completely dissolve a business that has been part of a community for 20 years, 30 years, up to 90 years. The oldest car dealership in Texas is 90 years old--a grandfather, father, and now a son running that car dealership. They were noticed 3 weeks from May 14 that dealership will be closed. Just to give a view of what the dealers received on May 14 and why these 789 who received this notice are so concerned is because the letter they were sent says: As a result of its recent bankruptcy filing, Chrysler is unable to repurchase your new vehicle inventory. As a result of the recent bankruptcy filing, Chrysler is unable to purchase your Mopar parts inventory. And furthermore, as a result of the bankruptcy filing, Chrysler is unable to purchase your essential special tools. After 90 years of operating a Chrysler dealership, a company is now told they will have no ability after 3 weeks to sell a Chrysler automobile, nor will there be a guarantee for repurchase. What my amendment does, which now has 20 very bipartisan cosponsors, is to say: Give these dealers 3 more weeks. Give them 3 more weeks to have an orderly transition out of a company. There are estimated to be 40,000 employees of these Chrysler dealerships who received 3 weeks' notice--40,000. We are dealing with so many issues in these auto manufacturer closings, the bankruptcies. We all want the auto manufacturers to stay in business. We do. The Government is making a huge investment in that hope. But the group that is getting nothing right now is the dealers. The dealers also are the group that has done nothing that caused this problem in the first place. They did not design the cars, they did not manufacture the cars, but they did buy them. There is no cost to the company that manufactures because these dealerships have purchased these cars. They have purchased the parts. They have purchased the special tools to do the repairs. Yet now they are being told they cannot sell, they cannot repair and, oh, by the way: We are not going to guarantee you will have your parts and inventory bought. This is just not right. That is why there are 20 cosponsors to this amendment, and it is growing by the hour. I submit for the Record a letter that Senator Rockefeller wrote to the chief executive officer, Robert Nardelli, in which he, too, is protesting the egregious timeframe and terms of these franchise terminations which he said ``seem unprecedented to me.'' As you know, most auto dealers have a few months of inventory of new vehicles on their lots, though some may have up to 6-months' worth. This means if the dealers stopped adding cars to their inventories last week when GM and Chrysler announced their decisions, they would still be able to sell cars for 6 months before they run out. But Chrysler is saying they will not buy back this inventory or even parts and instead has arranged for the remaining dealers to buy the unsold cars from dealers set to lose their franchises. But there is no guarantee of that. Right now it is just a hope.

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors to amendment No. 1189: Senator Landrieu, Senator Shaheen, Senator Crapo, Senator Risch, Senator Bill Nelson, and Senator Snowe.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would point out that there are now 26 cosponsors of the amendment that would have tried to give the Chrysler car dealers extra time to get their affairs in order rather than a June 9 deadline. It would just give them 3 more weeks. I am still hoping the White House and the Chrysler company will come forward with something that will give some help to these dealers. I think the Senate is beginning to speak by the number of cosponsorships for this amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Inouye as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1189.