December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10861 

They will not be put back into the used 

car market. 

Low-income Americans can get a new 

car, and it helps the auto industry. 

Isn’t that what we want, a demand 

pull? We have a demand pull, and they 

start selling all these cars they have in 

inventory they cannot sell right now. 

My bill would stipulate this program 

could run from enactment through all 

of next year and end on December 31 of 

next year. So if we are going to be 

throwing $100 billion at the automobile 

companies, or $55 billion—no one 

knows—why don’t we take those billions of dollars and give it to consumers, low-income consumers, to buy 

a new car that is more fuel efficient, 

has better emissions controls? 

It seems to me that is what I call 

percolate up economics—percolate up— 

not trickle down economics. But no 

one is talking about this. Why 

shouldn’t we be talking about it? 

Think about all the elderly people in 

this country who are retired who are 

driving old cars, but they cannot afford 

a new one. So they are stuck driving an 

old car they have put a lot of money 

into, to repair this and repair that, 

paying more for gasoline. 

Well, here is a chance for an elderly 

person, a couple on a fixed income, to 

get a new car. Think about it. You can 

buy a new car. I do not know what a 

Chevy Malibu car costs. But you can 

buy a new car for about $15,000, $16,000, 

and $10,000 of it will be paid for by the 

Government. That is not a bad deal. 

Quite frankly, more credit would be 

available for that purpose. Well, you 

can understand that. If I am going to 

buy a car for $15,000, and $10,000 of it is 

going to be paid for by the Government, and I only have to finance $5,000, 

you can get all kinds of credit for that 

because the car’s asset is going to be 

worth more than that. It is going to be 

worth a lot more as you go down in 

years. So credit will be available easily 

for something such as that. 

So, again, this bailout plan the Bush 

administration and congressional leaders—I have not been involved in that— 

this plan they are drafting fails to answer these two very big questions. In 

the midst of a severe recession, how do 

we boost demand for new cars? And, 

secondly, how do we give consumers 

compelling incentives to purchase fuelefficient cars, especially at a time 

right now when gas prices are plummeting? We know they are going to 

come back, but right now they are 

plummeting. 

So, again, I will be introducing the 

Selling Fuel-Efficient Cars Act of 

2008—it might be 2009, by the time we 

get back in January. That is my proposal. Do not put it in at the top. No, 

do not give it to the big boys. Let’s let 

the consumers—low-income and modest income Americans—buy millions— 

millions—of new cars made in America, 

made here. Get rid of all that inventory. I tell you what, I think you would 

see that the automobile companies 

could probably get lines of credit if 

something such as that happened. Then 

they could get back into the market 

without relying upon the taxpayers 

anymore. 

So I guess I would sum it up by saying this: Go to your average taxpayer 

out there and say: Look, we are probably going to do something to save the 

automobile industry. Now, the taxpayer may say: I don’t want to do anything to save them. Well, OK, fine. 

That is a legitimate point. But let’s 

say that is not your choice. Your 

choice is: We are going to put money 

into the automobile industry. How 

would you like it done? Would you like 

it done by taking your tax money and 

putting it in at the top—there will be 

some restrictions on it; they have to do 

certain things such as that—putting it 

in at the top, or would you rather have 

your money go out so the little guy, 

the little woman, the little poor people, the retired people can buy a new 

car, have a little more of an asset, get 

the old clunkers off the road, have 

more fuel-efficient cars, with less bad 

emissions, and we will destroy all those 

old cars they turn in? We will destroy 

them, chop them up. 

You take that to any average taxpayer out there, and I will bet you my 

bottom dollar, if given that choice, if 

those are their two choices—put it in 

at the top or put it in at the bottom for 

consumers—they will pick the second 

choice. They will want to put it in for 

consumers, not just give it to the big 

boys. 

So I do not know why no one is talking about this. We should talk about it. 

We should talk about it more. I do not 

know. The bill they bring up may not 

be amendable. That is what I hear. But 

we ought to offer this. We ought to 

have the chance of saying: We can have 

a different approach to bailing out the 

automobile companies than just putting it in at the top. 

I believe the plan I am proposing will 

work. It will be better for America. It 

will help a lot of low-income people 

and elderly people in our country to 

have a new car and we will get millions 

of old clunkers off the road and we will 

destroy them and we will have a better 

system for our consumers. 

So for those who say we have to help 

the automobile companies, I say, OK, 

but is there only one way or is there 

another way? Well, I think there is another way, and I think the proposal I 

have laid out is the way we ought to 

go. 

With that, Madam President, I yield 

the floor. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SENATORS 

GORDON H. SMITH

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise 

today to pay tribute to my colleague, 

Senator GORDON H. SMITH of Oregon. 

We have served together on the Special 

Committee on Aging for since he came 

to the Senate in 1996. And for the past 

4 years, I have had the distinct pleasure of leading the committee alongside 

him. 

Our committee has a proud history of 

bipartisanship. Both the chair and the 

ranking member have the power to 

hold hearings, lead investigations, and 

conduct oversight for the good of older 

Americans. In every effort, the majority and minority staff involve each 

other, offering insights and inviting 

witnesses. The work we have done as 

leaders of the committee very much reflects the partnership we forged. And I 

am pleased to have had the opportunity to share many successes with 

Senator SMITH, the most recent of 

which—a 2-year extension of Supplemental Security Income, SSI, benefits 

for refugees and other humanitarian 

immigrants—was signed into law by 

President Bush this fall. 

As the end of our era comes to a 

close, I wish to applaud Senator SMITH

for his commendable leadership of the 

committee, and thank him for the comity he ensured as we worked together 

to support older workers, improve 

rural health care and Medicare accountability, and strengthen elder justice. I will be honored to push forth on 

these issues, which represent just a few 

of the many priorities we shared, 

though I will certainly regret the absence of my collaborator, Senator 

SMITH. 

I wish Senator SMITH nothing but 

success and happiness as he leaves this 

institution. I, along with millions of 

older Americans, owe him a debt of 

gratitude for the work he has done 

here. 

f 

HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES 

CAPTAIN ROB YLLESCAS

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam 

President, I rise today to honor Army 

CPT Rob Yllescas who was wounded in 

Afghanistan on October 28, 2008, and 

tragically succumbed to his injuries on 

December 1. 

Captain Yllescas, who was a native of 

Guatemala, attended the University of 

Nebraska at Lincoln, where he met his 

wife, Dena, a native of Osceola, NE. He 

came to call our State home, and today 

I know that every one of my fellow Nebraskans is proud to claim Captain 

Yllescas as one of our own. 

Captain Yllescas commanded BTroop, 6–4 Cavalry of the 3rd Brigade, 

1st Infantry Division, The Big Red One, 

where 90 American troops and more 

than 200 Afghan fighters were under his 

command. A graduate of Army Ranger 

School, Captain Yllescas had deployed 

twice before during his 10-year military 

career, both times to Iraq. His fellow 

soldiers recognized and respected Captain Yllescas’s commitment to the 

missions he performed. Although 

trained as a warfighter, Captain 

Yllescas knew the importance of connecting with the local populations and 

was known to sit down with local leaders for tea and discussions of democracy. 

After he was severely injured by an 

improvised explosive device, Captain 

S10862 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 10, 2008 

Yllescas was strong enough to survive 

a lengthy medical evacuation which 

eventually brought him to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD. With Dena and other family members at his side, Captain 

Yllescas underwent almost daily surgeries in the hope of recovery. Dena 

Yllescas chronicled his hospitalization 

on an Internet blog which drew tens of 

thousands of readers. Friends, relatives 

and total strangers all followed Captain Yllescas’s progress and prayed for 

his recovery. President George W. Bush 

made a special trip to the medical center and awarded Captain Yllescas the 

Purple Heart in a brief ceremony on 

November 10. 

Captain Yllescas knew the dangers he 

faced and the risks he took. He also 

knew the importance of the work he 

did in the Army on behalf of his fellow 

Americans. He risked and ultimately 

sacrificed his own life so that people a 

world away could have the chance to 

enjoy the freedoms he had found in 

America. 

Captain Yllescas is survived by his 

wife, Dena, and daughters Julia, age 7, 

and Eva, 10 months; parents, Barbara 

Yllescas of Lincoln and Otto Yllescas 

of Guatemala; a brother, Christopher of 

Columbia, MO; and two sisters, Jennifer Winterbauer of Lincoln and Natalie Yllescas of Guatemala. 

The life and service of Captain 

Yllescas represents an example we can 

all look up to and seek to emulate. He 

served his country honorably and made 

the ultimate sacrifice in furtherance of 

a much larger goal. Captain Yllescas 

made the most of his short life, and the 

greatest tragedy is that now it is impossible to know what more this promising young man might have accomplished. I join all Nebraskans in 

mourning the loss of Captain Yllescas 

and in offering my deepest condolences 

to his family. 

f 

GULF WAR ILLNESS RESEARCH 

FUNDING 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to review the findings of the 

congressionally mandated Research 

Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses. This report, which was 

released a few weeks ago, confirms 

what many veterans of the Gulf War, 

lawmakers, physicians, and researchers 

have long suspected that the mysterious illnesses suffered by one in four 

gulf war veterans are real, and are a result of their exposure to neurotoxic 

chemicals. 

It was not long after the successful 

conclusion of the gulf war that many of 

our soldiers returned home with multiple persistent symptoms including 

headaches, memory loss, gastrointestinal problems, and widespread 

pain. The symptoms were real, yet the 

cause and effective treatment have remained frustratingly elusive. As a leading member of the Senate Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs, I pushed hard for 

oversight hearings and continued research efforts. 

Finally, 17 years after the end of that 

conflict, this report confirms that veterans’ neurotoxin and pesticide exposure during the gulf war has been consistently found to be causally associated with gulf war illness. Unfortunately, this report also concludes that 

few veterans have recovered from their 

exposure, and treatments remain ineffective. While it is important that the 

cause of this illness has been established, it is unacceptable for our veterans to continue to suffer from these 

wounds of war. 

In light of the findings of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf 

War Veterans’ Illnesses, there must be 

a continued investment in gulf war illness research. It is estimated that 

175,000 to 210,000 gulf war veterans are 

suffering from the effects of neurotoxin 

exposure directly related to their time 

spent in the Gulf. Once again, hundreds 

of thousands of soldiers find themselves back in the area as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Therefore, it is 

vital that we do all that we can to adequately fund gulf war research. 

We also need to learn the lesson of 

the value of candor and research. DOD 

and VA must be more open with Congress about the concerns facing our 

troops, from neurotoxin and pesticide 

exposures in the gulf war to the troubling issue of suicide, mental health 

issues, and traumatic brain injury, 

TBI, in the current conflict. We must 

address all the wounds of war, both 

visible and invisible, for our veterans 

who have served so bravely. 

f 

GENERIC MEDICINES 

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I 

rise today to bring to my colleagues’ 

attention a recent article in the respected Journal of American Medicine 

on generic medicines. The article 

comes at a critical time as we begin to 

tackle the important issue of health 

care reform. 

There is no doubt that health care reform must include offering solutions 

that reduce skyrocketing health care 

costs. One solution to reducing costs is 

to increase access to generic medicines, which offer savings of up to 80 

percent over brand drug costs. 

The new JAMA article provides specific evidence on the benefits of generic 

medicines. The analysis, which included U.S. scientists reviewing more 

than 20 years of research on generic 

versus brand name drugs, found that 

there is no clinical evidence showing 

that brand name cardiovascular drugs 

were superior to their generic versions. 

Moreover, the lead author of the report 

noted that generics can lead to better 

outcomes because they cost less, which 

means patients can afford to take them 

and stay on them. 

As our economy continues to struggle, Americans across the country are 

looking for ways to make ends meet. 

We hear too often about older Americans rationing their medicines and 

even mothers watering down infant formula to make it last longer, not knowing of the dangerous health impact this 

can have. A recent survey conducted by 

BearingPoint, Inc., and Zogby found 

that an alarming number of consumers 

admitted that they would consider denying themselves or their children 

health care to save money during this 

difficult economic time. 

As we consider the critical and interrelated issues regarding the economic 

crisis and reform of national health 

care, the new JAMA study supports 

every effort we can make now to increase the use of generic medicines. We 

should remove the numerous barriers 

to getting generic medicines to consumers sooner rather than later, and 

we must prevent the creation of new 

barriers that will impede greater use of 

generics. We also should consider how 

to create a workable pathway for 

biogenerics, a pathway that actually 

gets these safe and affordable lifesaving medicines to patients in a timely manner. 

Generic medicines save consumers 

and State and Federal governments billions of dollars annually. At the same 

time, generic medicines are FDA approved, guaranteeing their safety and 

effectiveness. 

When the new Congress tackles the 

important health care initiatives that 

lie ahead, the safety and effectiveness 

of prescription drugs must remain a 

top priority. As the medical evidence 

concludes, Congress can have confidence in the fact that increasing access to generic medicines will provide 

high-quality care at significant cost 

savings for consumers and the government. 

I ask unanimous consent to have the 

article to which I referred printed in 

the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: