Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add more cosponsors to amendment No. 1189. They are Senators Collins, Specter, Kohl, Dorgan, Webb, Wicker, and Cornyn.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we are up to 35 Members, over one- third of the Senate, who are saying we need to help the Chrysler dealers who got the blow on May 14 saying they had 3 weeks to basically shut down an entire dealership. I have been talking to so many of my colleagues on the floor since I offered this amendment who have had stories of friends and people they know, people who sometimes own the largest employer in a city or a county, and the hardship these people are facing. They are facing the likelihood--unless we can get some closure--that they are going to lose, perhaps, their dealerships, and many are going into bankruptcy. They all have big real estate investments, we know that. A car dealership has large amounts of real estate. Usually, it is very expensive real estate. They still owe money, and they are in dire straits right now. What the negotiation is right now is this: I talked to the president of Chrysler this morning at 8:30. I have talked to the people at the White House who are the task force, the people overseeing the Chrysler and General Motors project, and to Senator Stabenow from Michigan, who has been so helpful in trying to put this together and work with me in a bipartisan way because while she has a Chrysler manufacturing plant, she also has dealers in Michigan, as does Senator Levin. So the 35 cosponsors of the amendment are completely bipartisan because we all have these stories, and we know these dealers are not getting a fair chance. I talked to the President of Chrysler, and he said there would be a letter forthcoming where he would lay out how Chrysler is going to help take the inventory off the books of these dealers that are being shut down--789 across the country. We are talking about 40,000 people working in these dealerships. We are talking about a lot of lives that are being affected. He said they would put out a letter today--he didn't say close of business, but we agree we both want something out today--that would give these dealers a definitive plan so they would know what they could count on. Not having to worry about inventory was No. 1 on the list. These dealers buy these cars and trucks. They buy them. It is their expense. They buy the parts. They buy the equipment that is unique for the repair of these cars. So they have the risk. Yet they could be stuck with 30 cars or 100 cars. This is sinking them. I said: I hope you are going to give us something definitive. He said and I believe he is trying to do just that without in any way delaying or disrupting the exit out of bankruptcy, which is in everyone's interest because the taxpayers are paying for the exit out of bankruptcy, and the quicker the better, that is for sure. But these dealers are about to go bankrupt too. We are talking about 40,000 employees of these dealers. I think it is important that we look at them as effective people. It is now a quarter of six. I just talked again with the president of Chrysler. He says we will have a letter within minutes. Actually, it was 15 minutes ago that I talked with him. He said it would be just a few minutes and they would get something to me. I am going to tell you right now, Madam President, and I am going to tell all of my colleagues, we are not passing this bill. We are not going to shorten the time. We are not going to have a unanimous consent agreement until I have a letter that will assure these dealers of what they can expect from Chrysler that will, hopefully, give them the clarity they need to be able to say: OK, I don't have to worry about cars and trucks and parts and specialized equipment. I can now worry about making the payments on my real estate. I can worry about my employees whom we are having to let go and worry about the effect on the community. I can worry about all those things, but the big things that can be handled by Chrysler and the task force will be handled. That is what I am looking for. I am putting everyone on notice that this bill is not going to have any shortened time period under a UC until I can see that letter. Senator Stabenow stands with me to try to make sure we are doing something that will be adequate. I will say, Senator Rockefeller, too, is very concerned. He and Senator Byrd sent a letter to the CEO of Chrysler and General Motors to object strongly to the handling, the treatment of the dealers. Senator Rockefeller as the chairman and I as the ranking member of the Commerce Committee are now talking about having a hearing with those CEOs and representatives of the dealership group as soon as we get back. That will be the week after next. I am waiting, hoping, with all of the good-faith efforts that have been made today by the White House, by the president of Chrysler and his team, and all of the Senators who have signed on as cosponsors of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, and I have been working all day with the Chrysler president and his team and with the White House and their team and the task force and their team to try to give the assurances to the 789 dealers who are going to be put out of business across our country by Chrysler--with the 3-week notification--that they will be able to recoup the cost of the inventory that has been left on their property and in their dealerships. I said I was going to hold up any shortening of time period for this bill to be considered until I got a letter of assurance. The original amendment, for which we have 37 cosponsors, was to extend the time by 3 weeks to allow the dealers to be able to sell more inventory, have a more orderly transition. In fact, what we have done, in consultation with the dealers, I think is going to be much better. It is not everything they had hoped for, but if there is good faith in this effort, it is going to be good for the dealers. But it will take good faith. Here is the letter the president of Chrysler, James Press, has sent to me. And Senator Stabenow as well has been one of the people who has been talking about this and negotiating. The letter says: Dear Senator Hutchison: I assure you that our process for redistributing the product from OldCo dealers-- Who are the old company dealers who are going to be put out of business-- to NewCo dealers-- Who are the dealers who will survive-- is designed to assure that products flow quickly and efficiently from every OldCo dealer. As part of this process, we will ensure that the OldCo dealers receive a fair and equitable value for virtually all of their outstanding vehicle and parts inventory. We have more than 200 representatives in the field that are working to ensure that we make good on this commitment as quickly as is practical. We have a very robust system in place to manage the sales to NewCo dealers as well as the inspection and shipment to the new dealer. Thanks to your input today we have added a new set of assurances and information for the OldCo dealers, with the intention of removing some of the uncertainty that naturally surrounds this process. Each OldCo dealer will receive a daily report which specifically outlines each unit of inventory and its place in the transition process. We share the objective of selling these vehicles as quickly as possible to protect residual values. We are committed to sell every unit possible by June 9, prior to resumption of production [of the company]. Thank you for your time and interest today. Our goal is to ensure that every dealer realizes a soft landing and is able to transition smoothly. Senator Stabenow and I called Mr. Press for a clarification of some of the parts of this letter. The biggest concern, of course, that the dealers have is getting the inventory they have paid for off their books. That is their biggest concern. We were assured that the 200 representatives who are going out to help this orderly and quick transition will make every effort to expedite the transition to the surviving dealerships as quickly as possible. This will include specialized tools, as well as parts, inventory, and outstanding vehicles. I said: What happens after June 9? Because the June 9 deadline is good when you are trying to expedite, but then you are not saying that you will not keep helping after June 9. They said: Absolutely not. Mr. Press said they will certainly continue to help until every part of this transition of this inventory is disposed of. And the help will be there after June 9. That was the assurance that was given. The major thing that has happened that has been helpful is that GMAC has received--as we all know because it is public--in the range of $7.5 billion for financing, which will be available to the new surviving dealerships--Chrysler, and I am sure General Motors as well--and so the new dealers will have the ability to finance the taking of the inventory off of the dealers who are going to be put out of business. So that is probably one of the most important components here because there had to be a lending source for the new dealers to absorb the new inventory. I think the biggest concern left for the dealers is the floor plan loans they have for the inventory that is there and how that would change after June 9. I asked that question. And basically the answer is: We are going to try to do everything possible to get these transitions out before June 9 so you will not have, hopefully, the problem of loans being modified. So that is the essence of the conversation and questions I asked for clarification. I ended by saying that I think we are much further ahead now than we were when the letter arrived on May 14 to the dealers saying: We are not going to buy inventory, we are not going to buy parts, and we are not going to buy the specialized tools, and you have 3 weeks to deal with this. We have come a long way from there. I said to Mr. Press, and to his team, that I did appreciate this effort and the better clarification, but we will know in 2 weeks if the good faith that is represented in this letter is, in fact, implemented. And they agreed with that. I think we have made a step in the right direction--when my dealers call and say: Under the circumstances, it is not what we had wanted, but we have been treated as fairly as possible and have certainly gotten the relief from the burden of inventory so we can deal with the employees who will not be with us anymore, and the land and the real estate and the other costs of closing an ongoing business. So I will say to my colleague from Michigan, I do not think any of this would have happened without her stepping in. And hands-on efforts were made to bring the White House in, Chrysler in, my staff, her staff. So it was certainly a team effort. I want to thank the 37 cosponsors of my amendment because I think that was a clear indication that over one-third of this Senate was not going to let this go the way it had been left at the time. So if there is good will in this whole effort for the next 2 weeks, then I am optimistic it will have a good result. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter written to me by James Press today be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Senator Rockefeller is concerned, as many of us are, that the dealers are the roadkill in this, and they are also the people who have run successful businesses. They have sold the cars. They have employees. They have investments in the community. In many instances, these are the largest employers in the community. They support the high school football program. They support the community charitable events. We are not only knocking out 40,000 employees, we are not only knocking out the people who have given their faith and loyalty to this brand, but we are knocking out a huge chunk of community activism and volunteer service to the many communities affected by these closings. I talked with the president of Chrysler this morning, and I believe he sincerely is trying to save the company, and we want him to do that. But it has been half a day, and I have not seen a progress report that we will be able to come back to the floor and say these dealers are going to get some help from Chrysler. The President says he wants to help. But I think it is time now that we get some sense of what help is. If it is purchasing the inventory, getting the financing for the new and ongoing dealerships that will stay in business, we need to know that. These dealers need to know it so they can plan. My goodness, it is now probably 2 weeks or so, until June 9, and these people are having to plan for the orderly transition of their companies, hopefully not into bankruptcy, but many of them are going into bankruptcy. I have been told some of these are Chrysler dealers, but they have other dealerships as well. The Chrysler dealership could bring down the ongoing one. I think it is time for the Government that is trying to help the manufacturers to say we need to help the dealers too. We do not need to have a bailout for the dealers, but we do need to give them time to have their orderly transition or give them credit possibilities with the dealerships that are going to stay in business and have them take the inventory. That would be the logical thing to do. But we need a commitment. The 20 cosponsors of this amendment, when they hear from their dealers and they hear what is happening, want answers and they want answers before this bill leaves the floor. I hope I can give a better result than I have gotten so far today from the White House and from Chrysler that something is coming together. I think everyone has the right goal. We need to work together to achieve that goal. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are still working on language that I very much hope we can get agreement on before the end of the day. I think everyone is working in good faith. That is my hope, and I will remain optimistic that we can have something definitive for the dealers in this country who are facing bankruptcy or dissolution in 2 weeks. As of now, 28 Senators have signed on to agree that we need to be helpful to them. I think we have a way forward, but we have to get everyone signed off on it. I hope all of the parties will do that, so there can be a definitive announcement, because these dealers need to be able to plan going forward. They need to know what the rules of the game are. I think it is the least we can do for them. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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 Senators Feingold and Harkin to amendment No. 1189.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That takes us up to 29 cosponsors of this amendment. We are almost up to a third of the Senate saying we need to help these Chrysler dealers. I just hope we can produce something for these dealers by the end of business today that will help them begin to get their affairs in order after the blow they received on May 14. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I think the Senator from Arkansas, who is working very hard on trying to get an amendment into this bill as well. She is in the Chamber. I appreciate her also coming in and saying: We are a bipartisan team, and we want results for these dealers who have been so badly treated up to this point. I am hoping that will change in the next few minutes and we will see a light at the end of the tunnel for these dealers. Madam President, I yield the floor and 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 state for the record that the Commerce Committee hearing on the auto dealerships has been set for June 2 at 2:30 p.m. This is a very important hearing where we are going to have representation from the automobile manufacturers, as well as the automobile dealers. I hope that will shed some light on what we can do to help these dealers. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield for Senator Stabenow.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to thank again the Senator from Michigan. It was certainly a difficult position for her to, of course, have the manufacturers--GM and Chrysler--but also to have the dealers that are all over Michigan. I think the tireless efforts we had all day today will hopefully end in the next 2 weeks with the implementation of as fair as possible dealings with the dealers that we could possibly have. Mr. President, I wish to add Senator Thune as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1189.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, and I so appreciate the 39 cosponsors of this amendment who stepped up to the plate and said this has to be fixed. In the end, that made a big difference. I wish to thank my colleagues who have been very bipartisan. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to give sort of a progress report on the amendment I introduced yesterday and is pending still, but after cloture it will be in a different category, of course. I wish to say I have had a very productive opportunity to talk to the president of Chrysler and the people at Chrysler to try to make headway for the Chrysler dealers, the 789 that have gotten the notice they will be shut down as of June 9. I think there is a way forward here. It is not set in concrete, but I think there is going to be a result that I believe will make it a much better situation. That is what I am working for because these dealers right now are facing bankruptcy themselves-- every one of them. We are talking about 40,000 employees in these dealerships. So as the Government is certainly backing the automobile companies and they are trying to have as soft a landing as possible for all those involved in this very serious situation we are in, I want the dealers to be part of the soft landing. I don't think it is Government's position to go in and change the decisions that have been made by Chrysler, but I do think it is our responsibility to assure that those dealers have the ability to have some accommodation for all the inventory they have--the cars, the special equipment, the parts--that after June 9, they will not be able to use. They will not be able to sell a Chrysler car or use the Chrysler logo. Although General Motors has given notice to its dealers, they have given them until the end of 2010 to work things through. But Chrysler I think is trying to stay as strong as they can going into the merger that has been approved, so they want a quick ending, which we all understand and support. I do. I want Chrysler to emerge in a stronger situation. I think we all do. But I also want the dealers that are suffering all over this country right now, having had 3 weeks' notice to shut down, sometimes a dealership that has been in business for 90 years or 50 years or 25 years--we can't walk away from that. Chrysler can't walk away from that. I believe, from talking to the president today, they agree with that. We are trying to get something definitive. I will report, again, on this. I am going to support cloture because we must provide the supplemental funds for our troops who are in harm's way. That is the premier purpose of this supplemental appropriation. I am very pleased this Senate has acted decisively to stop the funding for moving prisoners from Guantanamo Bay into our country or letting them go into other countries, where we fear we might see them again on the other side of an IED or some other disruption. I am very pleased with the action the Senate took yesterday on that. We must fund our troops who are in harm's way and their families and their quality of life, giving them the equipment and the training and the support they need to do their jobs. At the same time, the reason I brought this amendment forward is because it, too, is an emergency. While it is not a taxpayer expense, it is a situation that I think is untenable and that is the people who are under the gun until June 9. My message is that I believe the Chrysler people are going to try to do the right thing. I believe the White House can help us make that happen. We are going to work with the White House and the task force. The Senators from Michigan, I think, are also being very proactive here. I wish to say I appreciate the cosponsors of my amendment. Senator Mikulski, on the floor last night, was added as a cosponsor, along with Senator Menendez and Senator Brown. I ask unanimous consent, at this time, that Senator Casey and Senator Lautenberg be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1189.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. We were adding sponsors just about every few minutes as people began to see the plight of these dealers and hear from them. My message is we need to vote for cloture. We need to go forward with this supplemental appropriation for our troops, but we must--we must-- take care of these dealers in the best possible way and not leave them stranded in a situation which was not their doing. Yet they are paying the highest of all prices. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be notified after 10 minutes and that the approximately 6 minutes be reserved for Senator Inhofe.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is to reserve the 10 minutes I had scheduled and to reserve 6 minutes for you, I say to the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to prohibit funds from the supplemental being used for relocation of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. President Obama has asked for $100 million in the regular 2010 Defense appropriations bill for his proposal to close Guantanamo Bay. As Congress considers that plan for 2010, it is reasonable for us to ask the President to come to Congress with his plan so we can consider the funding requirements as part of the normal oversight process. But right now, I think it is clear, from all the debate we have heard, the President does not have a plan. Instead, he is proceeding with a decision to close Guantanamo Bay, even though there is no viable alternative for the detainment of terrorist combatants. On September 11, 2001, we know the United States peered into the face of evil, when 19 foreign terrorists brought the violence of extremism to our soil, claiming the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans. That day changed the course of American history. In the 8 years since, America has boldly waged the global war on terror in an effort to prevent terrorism from ever reaching American shores again. This conflict has presented our Nation with operational challenges which we had not seen before. It is where to and how to detain captured terrorists who are enemy combatants but do not represent legal combatants of a country. They are not an organized military. They do not have the honor code that any military of a country has. No. They are terrorists. They do not have an honor code. Therefore, how and where we detain them has been a unique situation for our country. Included in the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Since just after 9/11, these enemy combatants have been at a prison facility that is a U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. I have been there. Conditions are good. Medical service and food is good. Customs of the combatants are recognized and respected. My colleagues are discussing Guantanamo, saying it is divisive. They are talking about the whole issue of what is torture. I think it is very important that we separate what is torture from detaining enemy combatants who must be detained because they have information and because they are either suspects or known terrorists or are self- confessed terrorists who want to harm and kill Americans and our allies. So as we are discussing the issue of where they are detained, I think we should put aside the issue of what is torture, which is a legitimate issue for discussion but not in where these prisoners are housed. This issue should be: Is this a secure facility? Are conditions clean? Does it meet the standards of any American prison? Does it protect Americans by holding the detainees in a secure place from which it would be very difficult for them to escape? One other point, because it has been brought out that we have secure prisons in America. Well, there is a difference here because we are putting these enemy combatants who do not have an honor code on American soil, if that is the choice that is made, and we are also allowing people from the outside to then start plotting for their escape into America's neighborhoods. I believe the President's initiative saying we would close Guantanamo Bay within a year is premature, and I am extremely concerned that this deadline, when there is no alternative and no plan for these dangerous terrorists, is taking precedence over the plan that must be put forward for the security of Americans. There are five scenarios that have been outlined here on the floor about what we would do with these detainees: hand them over to their home countries for incarceration, transfer them to a neutral country, transfer them to prisons in America, send them to U.S. facilities abroad, or release them outright. Unfortunately, every one of these options heightens the threat to the lives of Americans. Let's talk about putting them in America. That is the worst of these options. By taking this action, we allow people to plot the takeover of a prison or the escape of these detainees, put them in cell phone range where they could be talking to the outside. That would be the worst option. In 2007, the Senate voted 94 to 3 expressing its firm opposition to any plans to release Guantanamo detainees into American society or to house them in American facilities. So what about other countries? What about putting them out into other countries? That, too, is very dangerous. In January, it was reported that former Guantanamo detainee Said Ali al-Shihri, who had been released into the custody of Saudi Arabia, has subsequently resurfaced as a terrorist operative. Today, he is one of the al-Qaida leaders in Yemen and is charged with planning and executing acts of violence against the United States and its allies. He is not the exception. According to the Pentagon, as many as 61 enemy combatants released from Guantanamo have since reconnected with terrorist networks and renewed their commitment to destroying America and our way of life. Even more frightening, these 61 former prisoners came from the group of 500 who were deemed ``less dangerous'' and thus were released. That means the approximately 270 detainees currently housed in Guantanamo represent the most nefarious of prisoners. Clearly, a viable alternative to Guantanamo has not been identified. Expediting closure of this detention facility without absolutely assuring that American lives would be safe, not endangered by this act, would place misguided foreign policy goals above the protection of our homeland and our people. Moreover, it signals a dangerous return to the pre-9/11 mindset. Before setting a deadline to close this facility at Guantanamo Bay--a U.S. naval base where they have been secured and from which there have been no escapes and no attempts to escape--before setting that deadline, the American people must be assured that the transfer or release of these detainees will not increase the risk to American citizens at home or abroad. As it stands, the administration cannot give that assurance today. We must require a plan before this order is executed. Not doing so is a pre-9/11 mentality that we cannot afford to adopt. We must remember what happened on 9/11. We were complacent. We were a people who never thought we would be attacked on our homeland by people even within this society who were helping to plot this destruction. We cannot go back to the mentality of ``everything is going to be OK and we won't be attacked again.'' There are people in Guantanamo and all over the world today who are plotting to undo the freedom in America and the ability to live with diversity and in peace, and we must hold up that flag of America and what it represents for the world. That is what will make America good in the eyes of the world--not releasing terrorists to harm other people and our allies.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment I have filed, amendment No. 1189. I am told the Democrats will object to my asking that it be pending, but I am going to talk about it. I hope very much I will have the opportunity to offer this amendment in regular order. As a right of a Senator, I hope that will be given. I don't know why it is being objected to, but I would very much like to speak on it. I hope I am not going to be prohibited from the opportunity to offer it, since I am on the floor in a timely manner trying to offer an amendment, as we have been asked to do. The amendment I hope to call up is amendment No. 1189. It is an amendment to try to help those automobile dealers that have been notified, particularly by Chrysler, with a deadline of June 9, and told they are going to have to shut their doors of those dealerships by June 9. They were given 3 weeks' notice. The President's task force on the auto industry has taken unprecedented steps to negotiate with each of the affected stakeholders to bring General Motors and Chrysler closer to sustainable viability. I know Members of this body sincerely appreciate the enormity of their task; however, there are many growing concerns with their actions. The group that has arguably taken the biggest hit by their negotiations is the auto dealers. Auto dealers are some of the biggest and best employers in our Nation, in small towns across my State and every State. Many of them are the largest employers in their entire counties. Auto dealers run a tough business. They assume a lot of risk. They purchase the vehicles from the manufacturer. Each dealer is forced to move their product in order to make payroll, to cover overhead, to pay property taxes, or close their doors, all of which is no cost to the manufacturer. These are all dealer expenses. While I understand that if an auto dealer is forced to close their doors because the dealer is unable to make the business profitable, of course, we can understand that would be the choice of the dealer and they would be closed. But I don't understand why General Motors or Chrysler would arbitrarily shut down thousands of operating and profitable dealers across our country. The Treasury Department has back-pedaled from any involvement in the decision to shut down auto dealers across the Nation. A recent Treasury press release states: As was the case with Chrysler's dealer consolidation plan, the task force was not involved in deciding which dealers or how many dealers were part of GM's announcement. An earlier press release from the Treasury said: The sacrifices by the dealer community alongside those of auto workers, suppliers, creditors, and other Chrysler stakeholders are necessary for this company and the industry to succeed. I don't think that is any kind of help for our dealers that are taking the risk and the responsibility for all the costs of their dealership. Before the closing announcements were made, another Treasury press release regarding Chrysler Fiat, on April 30, says: It is expected that the terminated dealers will wind down their operations over time and in an orderly manner. However, Chrysler, in their notification to close 789 dealers on May 14--last Thursday--has given dealers until June 9 to wind down. That is just over 3 weeks--3 weeks. Chrysler determined that an orderly wind- down--an orderly manner--to sell all their inventory, sell all their parts, get rid of all their special equipment--3 weeks. My amendment simply states that no funds shall be expended from the Treasury to an auto manufacturer which has notified a dealership that it will be terminated without providing at least 60 days for that dealership to wind down its operations and sell its inventory. Sixty days, that is what we are asking for. We are not asking that any decisions be changed. It is not our place to do that. However, we are saying that with all the taxpayer dollars that are going into the automobile manufacturers, the road kill here is the auto dealer and they have done nothing that would be unbusinesslike. They have taken the risks. They employ people in the community. They pay the taxes in the community. Sometimes they are the largest employer in the community. Yet they are given 3 weeks to close down their operations. If we are going to help anyone in this country without one taxpayer dollar going into it, it should be these auto dealers, by giving them 60 days to have an orderly process to close down their operations. I wish we could go further. I disagree with the decision to arbitrarily close down profitable auto dealers. I wish to give my colleagues an example. There is a town in my State called Mineral Wells. In that town of less than 20,000 people is Russell Whatley, a Chrysler dealer, whose family has owned his dealership for 90 years. It is the oldest dealership in Texas. Russell doesn't sell 1,000 cars a year, but he has been profitable. He actively supports his community. He has actively supported many employees. What is it going to save Chrysler to close Mr. Whatley's profitable dealership in Mineral Wells? I can't even imagine, but it isn't my decision to make. However, I am going to say that I do think Mr. Whatley deserves 60 days to have the orderly process that Treasury itself said they would expect from the auto manufacturers. I am worried about Mineral Wells when Mr. Whatley's dealership is closed, just as I am worried about communities all over this country with dealerships that are going to be arbitrarily closed. If they have 3 weeks to sell their inventory, what is that going to do to them and to the people who have to go out and find jobs? I don't think it is right. I think we should pass my amendment. The reason I am offering it on this bill is because this is a bill that is going to go through quickly, and this is a deadline that is coming very fast. If we can let those dealers know they are going to have 60 days, at least, for the orderly processing of their closures, I am told by dealers this will help them immensely in that process, and it will not cost the taxpayers one dime--not one dime. I hope we will pass this amendment. I hope the majority will allow this to be brought up in the regular order. I was told when I came to the floor that I would have the opportunity to offer this amendment and get into the line for a record vote. I hope that will be done, because we don't have much time to help these dealers. With all the money we are putting into the automobile manufacturers, and all of the help we are giving to others affected by that industry, the ones who have been left out are the auto dealers. I hope that giving them 60 days--2 months--to shut down a business that may have been in place for 25, 30, or 90 years is the least we can do in these troubling times. We are taking some very different positions that we have never taken as a Senate because these are tough times, and sometimes that is necessary. But this is the least we can do in fairness to a business that has done nothing to produce cars that won't sell. It has done nothing that has caused any of the financial problems of General Motors, and I think they deserve a break that will not cost the taxpayers a penny. I am going to be here, and I will ask the majority to allow amendment No. 1189 to become pending right after the votes that will occur very shortly. Mr. President, I have another amendment, and it is an amendment that I hope will help all of the hospitals in this country that are giving medical care on an emergency basis to illegal immigrants in our country get some reimbursement from the Federal Government for those costs. We have had in place funding--called section 1011 funding--for 5 years. I am only trying to extend this program so that all of the States that deal with the growing problem of taxpayer dollars--that the hospitals that have to absorb these costs will be able to recoup some of those costs from the Federal Government. The program provided $200 million over 5 years to help hospitals and doctors recoup these costs. It was not 100 percent reimbursement, I assure you. In my State of Texas, we had about $600 million in uncompensated care in 1 year, and we were able to obtain $50 million in reimbursement. That was a little bit of help that helped many of the hospitals make it. These are eligible for any hospital in America. I hope we will be able to pass an amendment on this bill to alleviate that situation. I am told that the Finance Committee is objecting to this amendment because it is in their jurisdiction. You know, I think it is incumbent upon the Finance Committee to work with me on this very important issue for all the States in our country, because this is a Federal problem, and it should not be put on the local communities to foot the bill for emergency care that they are required by Federal law to give, but not get reimbursement from the Federal Government. I hope the Finance Committee will agree to work with me on that. I urge the majority to allow amendment No. 1189, which is filed and has no objections, that I know of, to be in the next set of votes. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senators Cochran, Brown, McCaskill, and Bond be listed as cosponsors.