S394 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 2009 

We face many challenges. We know 

that few nursing programs require 

coursework in geriatrics and that in 

medical schools, comprehensive geriatric training is a rarity. Currently, 

only one percent of all physicians are 

certified geriatricians, even as the population of older people is on track to 

double by 2030, and less than one percent of all nurses are certified gerontological nurses. Absent any change, by 

2020, the supply of nurses in the United 

States will fall 29 percent below projected requirements, resulting in a severe shortage of nursing expertise relative to the demand for care of frail 

older adults. 

Ensuring that health care workers 

are properly trained in the provision of 

care to our seniors is vital. For the direct care workforce, which includes 

home care aides and personal care attendants, we know that state training 

requirements vary enormously, despite 

the fact that studies show that more 

training is correlated with better staff 

recruitment and retention. We also 

know that family caregivers want enhanced education and training to develop the necessary skills to provide 

the best possible care for an ailing family member. There are more than 44 

million people providing care for a 

family member or friend nationwide. 

These caregivers frequently do the 

same work as a professional caregiver, 

but they do so voluntarily and with little or no training. To their loved one, 

they are the doctor, the nurse, the assistant, the therapist, and oftentimes 

the sole source of emotional and financial support. 

Fortunately, knowing what we need 

to change is half the battle. The bill I 

introduce today will expand, train, and 

support the workforce that is dedicated 

to providing care for the older members of our population, incorporating 

the major recommendations for improving the skills and preparedness of 

the health care workforce put forth in 

the Institute of Medicine report, ‘‘Retooling for an Aging America: Building 

the Healthcare Workforce.’’ It has the 

support of many national organizations, such as AARP, the American 

Health Care Association, the American 

Association of Homes and Services for 

the Aging, Consumers Union, Family 

Caregiver Alliance, the National Alliance for Caregiving, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, Alzheimer’s Association, the American 

Geriatrics Society, the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, 

Paraprofessional HealthCare Institute, 

the American Association of Geriatric 

Psychiatry, Alliance for Aging Research, and The Catholic Health Association. 

By the year 2020, it is estimated that 

the number of older adults in need of 

care will increase by one-third. The 

United States will not be able to meet 

the approaching demand for health 

care and long-term care without a 

workforce that is prepared for the job. 

Bolstering the health care workforce 

will be an integral part of national 

health care reform, and I look forward 

to working with Finance and HELP 

Committee leaders on incorporating 

this legislation into their policy proposals. 

By Mr. DURBIN: 

S. 246. A bill to amend title 38, 

United States Code, to improve the 

quality of care provided to veterans in 

Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities, to encourage highly 

qualified doctors to serve in hard-tofill positions in such medical facilities, 

and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the 

fall of 2007, at least nine veterans died 

at the Marion VA Medical Center as a 

result of the poor medical care they received. We immediately learned that a 

VA surgeon, who had operated on some 

of these veterans, was not qualified to 

work at the VA but slipped through the 

hiring process. Later, VA investigations revealed much larger problems in 

the management of the facility—problems that employees kept secret out of 

fear for losing their jobs. Today, I am 

reintroducing legislation to help ensure that incidents like these never 

take place again at Marion or another 

VA medical center. 

I asked the VA to investigate the circumstances surrounding these unfortunate deaths as soon as they came to 

light. The VA investigation revealed 

that Marion hospital management 

knew that doctors, including the surgeon at issue, were not properly 

credentialed but failed to act. The surgeon remained employed at the Marion 

hospital and practiced there for more 

than a year. Had he not been hired to 

work at Marion, many of his patients 

may have survived their surgeries. 

The VA investigation revealed additional quality of care issues at the 

Marion hospital. Management disregarded VA quality care directives in 

the face of serious patient incident reports and surgical data collected to ensure quality of care. They ignored or 

failed to recognize warning signs that 

there were problems in the surgical 

program. 

The investigation also showed many 

Marion Medical Center employees 

feared reporting quality of care issues. 

They worried that quality of care 

might be suffering at the facility but 

hesitated to report those concerns for 

fear of losing their jobs. A primary reason is that such reports were funneled 

through management at the facility, 

rather than being handled by an independent and confidential outlet focused 

solely on quality of care. 

The legislation I am introducing 

would improve quality of care across 

the VA medical care system. 

First, it would improve the process of 

vetting doctors who apply to or work 

for the VA and restore accountability 

to physician hiring and retention practices. 

Second, the legislation would expand 

the quality control programs in the VA 

health care system. The bill creates 

new quality assurance officer positions, 

gives VA employees new forums to 

raise concerns about the quality of 

care at a VA facility, without fear of 

retribution, and establishes strong peer 

review mechanisms for physicians. 

Third, the legislation would create 

incentives to encourage high-quality 

doctors to practice at VA hospitals. In 

return for agreeing to practice in hardto-serve areas, doctors and medical 

students could participate in student 

loan forgiveness and tuition reimbursement programs. Doctors would also be 

eligible to participate in the federal 

employee health insurance program. 

Fourth, where practical, VA medical 

facilities would be required to establish 

affiliations with nearby medical 

schools. These partnerships would expose medical students to careers with 

the VA. In return, the VA would benefit from the energy and innovative 

ideas brought by students working in 

their facilities. In addition, VA hospitals would benefit from access to experienced medical school faculty members. 

Finally, the bill would encourage the 

VA to increase its recruitment of experienced doctors who are willing to 

practice for our veterans. The VA must 

hire and retain only highly qualified 

doctors as it takes on these tremendous responsibilities. 

Every one of the tragic deaths at the 

Marion VA hospital violated the obligation our Nation owes to its veterans. 

Each of their lives can never be replaced. The Veterans Health Care Quality Improvement Act is a strong step 

toward avoiding such tragedies in the 

future and reestablishing trust in the 

veterans health care system. 

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, 

Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. SCHUMER): 

S. 247. A bill to accelerate motor fuel 

savins nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high fuel 

consumption automobiles to replace 

such automobiles with fuel efficient 

automobiles or public transportation; 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

rise today to introduce the ‘‘Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles 

Act.’’ This legislation is cosponsored 

by Senators SUSAN COLLINS and 

CHARLES SCHUMER. A companion bill is 

also being introduced today in the 

House of Representatives by Mr. 

ISRAEL and Mr. INSLEE. 

Let me first acknowledge the important role of one of my colleagues, Senator SALAZAR, who initiated much of 

the thought and drafting for this legislation at the end of the last Congress. 

I thank him for his leadership, and I 

thank him for letting us take up the 

work needed to move this bill forward 

as he begins to transition into his new 

role with the incoming Obama administration. 

Last Congress, we successfully enacted legislation—which I authored 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S395 

with Senator SNOWE and others—to improve the fuel efficiency of America’s 

fleet of new cars, trucks and SUVs by 

10 miles per gallon over 10 years, or 

from 25 miles per gallon to at least 35 

miles per gallon by 2020. 

But the fact is that we face real challenges with trying to encourage drivers 

to trade in their older, less fuel efficient vehicles for a cleaner and more 

fuel efficient vehicle—particularly in 

this tough economic climate. 

This bill is designed to address that 

problem. 

First, let me explain this legislation. 

This bill would establish an incentive 

program at the Department of Energy 

to provide a voucher, or coupon, of between $2,500 to $4,500 to a consumer 

who trades in an inefficient, used vehicle for a much more efficient car, 

truck, or SUV. 

The traded-in vehicles—which must 

be then dismantled or scrapped—must 

meet the following requirements; have 

a fuel economy of no more than 18 

miles per gallons, be in drivable condition, and have been registered for at 

least the past 120 days. 

To receive the benefit of the coupon, 

purchased vehicles must exceed Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, 

Standards for that class of vehicle by 

at least 25 percent and have a suggested retail price below $45,000. 

The size of the coupon varies based 

upon the expected oil savings created 

by trading in the vehicle. 

The voucher program will be set up 

to provide larger credits to new, more 

recent vehicles that would otherwise be 

on the road for many more years, while 

older ‘‘clunker’’ models would be eligible for smaller credits. 

The bill specifies that during the 

first year of the program, vouchers will 

be issued for the following amounts: 

For model year 2002 and later: new vehicle: $4,500, used vehicle: $3,000, transit fare credit: $3,000. For model year 

1999–2001: new vehicle: $3,000, used vehicle: $2,000, transit fare credit: $2,000. 

For model year 1998 and earlier: new 

vehicle: $2,500, used vehicle: $1,500, 

transit fare credit: $1,500. In each subsequent year, 2010, 2011, and 2012, the 

model years would be advanced by 1 

year. 

Vouchers would be eligible for redemption for up to 2 years after the 

date of issuance, and no individual 

would be eligible to obtain more than 

one voucher in any 3-year period. 

Dealers, dismantlers and scrap recycling facilities would also be eligible 

for a payment of $50 per vehicle, or an 

alternative amount to be specified by 

the Secretary of Energy. 

Simply put, this legislation offers a 

unique opportunity to both stimulate 

automobile industry sales and reduce 

vehicular oil use, creating a win-win 

policy for all involved. 

As we know, our Nation’s automobile 

industry is in serious trouble. 

Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford 

have all asserted in their recent viability plans that their dire financial situation is a direct result of the collapse 

in automobile sales. 

The new car sales rate has dropped to 

less than 11 million vehicles sold annually, compared to the 16.2 million vehicles sold in the United States in 2007. 

The major Detroit and Japanese 

carmakers all reported double digit 

sales drops for December. General Motors reported sales dropped 31 percent; 

Ford Motor Co. reported a drop of 32 

percent; Chrysler LLC reported sales 

plummeted 53 percent; Honda Motor 

Co. said its sales fell 34 percent; Nissan 

North America said its sales fell 30 percent and Toyota Motor Co. said its U.S. 

sales fell 37 percent. 

Bottom line: The automobile companies are all in trouble because far fewer 

people are buying automobiles. 

According to J.D. Power and Associates, this has produced dealer lots full 

of vehicles that can’t be sold. Over the 

past year the number of days that a vehicle sits on a lot has almost doubled. 

The problem is most severe for 

Chrysler, GM and Ford. Their vehicles 

all sat on dealer lots for in excess of 100 

days last year. 

By encouraging automobile sales, 

this legislation would go a long way to 

addressing the significant troubles that 

America’s once mighty car industry 

now faces. 

While emergency bridge loans help 

auto companies make payroll, only 

stimulating automobile sales will cure 

the disease that confronts the automobile sector. 

By creating a voucher system for the 

purchase of a vehicle with certain attributes, this legislation would stimulate sales at precisely the right moment. 

Perhaps that is why General Motors 

went out of its way to endorse this 

kind of program in its recent Viability 

Plan, recommended ‘‘tax credits for 

scrapping older, higher-carbon emitting vehicles.’’ 

This legislation would also assist 

owners of the least efficient vehicles 

who are least likely to trade their cars 

in for something more efficient. 

The trade-in value of inefficient vehicles has plummeted, making a trade-in 

financially difficult. 

In a November 2008 analysis, Kelley 

Blue Book concluded: ‘‘[T]his year’s vehicles with the lowest retained value 

include vehicles that are not fuel 

friendly with large V–8 engines. . . . 

These gas misers . . . will only maintain 20 percent of their original value 

after five years of ownership.’’ 

Bottom line: The legislation is stimulus of the most important kind. It 

would provide incentives for new vehicle sales, incentivize the trade-in of inefficient vehicles, and reward consumers who want to reduce their oil 

use and carbon footprint. 

This proposal also provides important benefits for the environment—and 

addressing the challenges of climate 

change. 

I have been a long time champion of 

increasing fuel economy standards, and 

I was extremely proud to have authored the new fuel economy law with 

Senator SNOWE, which was enacted by 

Congress and signed into law in December 2007. 

But new CAFE standards will not 

take effect until model year 2011. They 

cannot make up for our failure to increase standards for the past 3 decades. 

The bill we are introducing today 

would target the very vehicles that 

CAFE standards are unable to reach: 

older fuel-inefficient cars, trucks and 

SUVs 

It will provide incentives to consumers who wish to buy the most efficient vehicles available during the 2 

years before the new CAFE standards 

will require improvement. 

It will provide incentives to remove 

the most inefficient vehicles that 

would have never been part of the fleet 

had Congress acted to increase CAFE 

standards 5 years ago. 

The result is considerable oil savings 

and significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. 

According to analysis by the non-partisan American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy, ACEEE, by 2013 

this legislation would prompt the trade 

in of between 500,000 and 1 million of 

the dirtiest, least efficient vehicles on 

the road today. 

As a result, by 2013 between 40,000 

and 80,000 fewer barrels of oil per day 

will be burned; between 6.6 million 

metric tons and 13.3 million metric 

tons of carbon dioxide per year will not 

be emitted. 

This is the equivalent of removing 

between 1.1 million and 2.2 million cars 

from the road. 

In our current economic and environmental circumstance, there are few opportunities to both help the automobile industry evolve and improve 

the fuel economy of the fleet. 

This idea—providing consumers with 

an incentive to trade in their inefficient vehicle for something far better— 

will stimulate the economy and save 

oil, and I encourage my colleagues to 

support it. 

I strongly encourage the Obama administration and the Appropriations 

Committee to authorize and fund this 

proposal in the stimulus. 

I am committed to advancing the 

goals of stimulus and fuel savings, and 

have put what I believe to be the best 

proposal to meet these goals. 

I understand that within the details 

of this idea, there may be different 

views. I am open to suggestions that 

improve the structure of the program 

proposed by this legislation, and ask 

my colleagues to communicate their 

thoughts soon. 

Finally, I hope non-related matters— 

such as trade policy—will not prevent 

my colleagues from supporting this 

legislation. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S396 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 2009 

S. 247 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accelerated 

Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act of 

2009’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) AUTOMOBILE; MANUFACTURER; MODEL; 

MODEL YEAR.—The terms ‘‘automobile’’, 

‘‘manufacturer’’, ‘‘model’’, and ‘‘model year’’ 

have the meanings given such terms in section 32901(a) of title 49, United States Code. 

(2) CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.—The term ‘‘certificate of title’’ means a State-issued document showing ownership of an automobile. 

(3) DEALER.—The term ‘‘dealer’’ means a 

person residing in a State that engages in 

the sale, lease, or distribution of new automobiles to the first person (except a dealer 

buying as a dealer) that is an ultimate purchaser. 

(4) DISMANTLER.—The term ‘‘dismantler’’ 

means a person residing in a State who is licensed to operate a business employing 3 or 

more persons to take automobiles apart for 

the purpose of reclaiming usable parts and 

recyclable materials. 

(5) ELIGIBLE FLEET OPERATOR.—The term 

‘‘eligible fleet operator’’ means— 

(A) the operator of a fleet of automobiles 

that is owned by a State, Indian tribe, or 

local government; or 

(B) the owner of 2 or more automobiles authorized to carry passengers for hire under 

State, tribal, or local regulations governing 

the operation of taxi cabs. 

(6) ELIGIBLE HIGH FUEL CONSUMPTION AUTOMOBILE.—The term ‘‘eligible high fuel consumption automobile’’ means a high fuel 

consumption automobile that, at the time it 

is presented for participation in the program 

established under section 3— 

(A) is in drivable condition; and 

(B) has been continuously registered and 

licensed to operate in any State for a period 

of not fewer than 120 consecutive days for operation on public roads. 

(7) FUEL EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE.—The term 

‘‘fuel efficient automobile’’ means an automobile manufactured for any model year 

after 2003 that, at the time of the original 

sale to a consumer— 

(A) carries a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of $45,000 or less; 

(B) complies with the applicable air emission and related requirements under the National Emission Standards Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 

et seq.); 

(C) qualifies for listing in emission bin 1, 2, 

3, 4, or 5 (as defined in section 86.1803–01 of 

title 40, Code of Federal Regulations); and 

(D)(i) for automobiles manufactured in any 

of the model years 2004 through 2010, 

achieves a measured fuel economy level that 

exceeds by 25 percent the fuel economy 

standard prescribed by the Secretary of 

Transportation under section 32902 of title 

49, United States Code, for the model year 

and compliance category of such automobile; 

or 

(ii) for automobiles manufactured for any 

model year after 2010, achieves a measured 

fuel economy level that exceeds by 25 percent the fuel economy target prescribed by 

the Secretary of Transportation under such 

section 32902 for the model year and automobile attribute group into which such automobile is classified. 

(8) HIGH FUEL CONSUMPTION AUTOMOBILE.— 

The term ‘‘high fuel consumption automobile’’ means an automobile manufactured 

for any model year before 2008 for which the 

originally certified measured fuel economy 

level is less than 18 miles per gallon. 

(9) MEASURED FUEL ECONOMY LEVEL.—The 

term ‘‘measured fuel economy level’’ means 

the fuel economy level of a new automobile 

model measured in accordance with section 

32904 of title 49, United States Code, and regulations prescribed thereunder. 

(10) NEW AUTOMOBILE.—The term ‘‘new 

automobile’’ means an automobile for which 

a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer has 

never transferred the equitable or legal title 

to such automobile to an ultimate purchaser. 

(11) NONPASSENGER AUTOMOBILE.—The term 

‘‘nonpassenger automobile’’ means an automobile classified as a light truck under part 

523 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. 

(12) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ has the 

meaning given such term in section 551 of 

title 5, United States Code. 

(13) PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘Program’’ 

means the Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Program established under 

section 3. 

(14) REGISTERED OWNER.—The term ‘‘registered owner’’ means, with respect to an 

automobile, the person whose name appears 

on the current State certificate of registration for such automobile. 

(15) SCRAP RECYCLING FACILITY.—The term 

‘‘scrap recycling facility’’ means a business— 

(A) employing 3 or more individuals at a 

fixed location in a State, where machinery 

and equipment are utilized for processing 

and manufacturing scrap metal into prepared grades; and 

(B) whose principal product is scrap iron, 

scrap steel, or nonferrous metallic scrap for 

sale for remelting purposes. 

(16) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ 

means the Secretary of Energy. 

(17) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the 

meaning given such term in section 32101 of 

title 49, United States Code. 

(18) ULTIMATE PURCHASER.—The term ‘‘ultimate purchaser’’ means, with respect to any 

new automobile, the first person who in good 

faith purchases such automobile for purposes 

other than resale. 

(19) VOUCHER.—The term ‘‘voucher’’ means 

a voucher issued to the registered owner of 

an eligible high fuel consumption automobile under section 3(a). 

SEC. 3. ACCELERATED RETIREMENT OF INEFFICIENT VEHICLES PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established 

in the Department of Energy a program to be 

known as the ‘‘Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Program’’, through which 

the Secretary shall— 

(1) authorize the issuance of a voucher, 

subject to the limitations described in subsection (e)(1), to any person or eligible fleet 

operator who is a registered owner of an eligible high fuel consumption automobile, 

which voucher may be used solely by such 

person or eligible fleet operator for the purchase of a new or used fuel efficient automobile upon the transfer of the certificate of 

title to such high fuel consumption automobile to a dealer, dismantler, or scrap recycling facility participating in the Program; 

(2) allow any dealer, dismantler, or scrap 

recycling facility to participate in the Program if the dealer, dismantler, or scrap recycling facility agrees to— 

(A) scrap any eligible high fuel consumption automobile upon receiving the certificate of title to such automobile pursuant to 

the Program; 

(B) issue a voucher to the registered owner 

of such automobile; 

(C) certify to the Secretary that such automobile has been crushed or shredded in accordance with subsection (e)(4); and 

(D) comply with all applicable requirements under this Act and any regulations 

promulgated by the Secretary to carry out 

this Act; 

(3) require that all dealers accept vouchers 

presented by a person or eligible fleet operator described in paragraph (1) as partial 

payment for the purchase of a new or used 

fuel efficient automobile; and 

(4) make payments to dealers for vouchers 

accepted by such dealers under paragraph (3) 

between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 

2014, in accordance with the provisions of 

this section. 

(b) AMOUNT OF VOUCHER.— 

(1) VOUCHER REDEMPTION VALUE IF USED TOWARD PURCHASE OF NEW FUEL EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE.—A voucher issued under the Program during the 4-year period beginning on 

January 1, 2009, may be applied to offset the 

purchase price of a new fuel efficient automobile by— 

(A) $4,500 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a 

model year that is 7 or fewer years less than 

the calendar year in which the voucher was 

issued; 

(B) $3,000 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a 

model year that is 8 to 10 years less than the 

calendar year in which the voucher was 

issued; and 

(C) $2,500 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a 

model year that is 11 or more years less than 

the calendar year in which the voucher was 

issued. 

(2) VOUCHER REDEMPTION VALUE IF USED TOWARD PURCHASE OF USED FUEL EFFICIENT

AUTOMOBILE.—A voucher issued under the 

Program during the 4-year period beginning 

on January 1, 2009, may be applied to offset 

the purchase price of a used fuel efficient 

automobile by— 

(A) $3,000 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a 

model year that is 7 or fewer years less than 

the calendar year in which the voucher was 

issued; 

(B) $2,000 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a 

model year that is 8 to 10 years less than the 

calendar year in which the voucher was 

issued; and 

(C) $1,500 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a 

model year that is 11 or more years less than 

the calendar year in which the voucher was 

issued. 

(3) VOUCHER REDEMPTION VALUE IF USED TOWARD PURCHASE OF A HIGHLY FUEL EFFICIENT

AUTOMOBILE.—The values determined under 

paragraphs (1) or (2) shall be increased by 

$1,000 if the voucher issued under the Program is applied to offset the purchase price 

of a fuel efficient automobile that achieves a 

measured fuel economy level that exceeds by 

50 percent the fuel economy standard prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation 

under section 32902 of title 49, United States 

Code, for the model year and compliance category of such automobile. 

(4) VOUCHER REDEMPTION VALUE IF USED FOR

TRANSIT FARE CREDITS.—A voucher issued 

under the program during the 4-year period 

beginning on January 1, 2009, may be applied 

to acquire single-passenger transit fare credits from participating transit operators in an 

amount equal to the amounts provided under 

paragraph (2). 

(c) ADMINISTRATIVE PAYMENTS TO PARTICIPATING DEALERS, DISMANTLERS, AND SCRAP

RECYCLING FACILITIES.—The Secretary shall 

provide for a payment of $50, or another 

amount determined reasonable by the Secretary, to participating dealers, dismantlers, 

and scrap recycling facilities for each voucher issued under the Program in consideration 

of the administrative costs related to such 

issuance. 

(d) LISTS OF ELIGIBLE AUTOMOBILES TO BE

MAINTAINED.—The Secretary, in cooperation 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S397 

with the Secretary of Transportation, shall 

prepare, maintain, publicize, and make 

available through the Internet, lists of automobiles, classified by make and model, 

which are classified under this section as— 

(1) eligible high fuel consumption automobiles; 

(2) new fuel efficient automobiles; or 

(3) used fuel efficient automobiles. 

(e) PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS.— 

(1) LIMITATIONS.— 

(A) VOUCHERS PER PERSON.—Not more than 

1 voucher may be issued to a person in any 

period of 3 successive calendar years. A person may be issued a voucher if the person 

demonstrates, in a manner prescribed by rule 

by the Secretary, that such person— 

(i) is the registered owner of an eligible 

high fuel consumption automobile; and 

(ii) attests that such high fuel consumption automobile has not been imported into 

the United States during the previous 4- 

month period. 

(B) VOUCHERS FOR ELIGIBLE FLEETS.—A 

voucher for the purchase of a new or used 

fuel efficient automobile from a dealer may 

be issued to an eligible fleet operator for 

each eligible high fuel consumption automobile for which such eligible fleet operator 

is the registered owner, as demonstrated in a 

manner prescribed by rule by the Secretary. 

(C) OFFSET.—A dealer— 

(i) shall credit the amount of the voucher 

being applied toward the purchase of a fuel 

efficient automobile; and 

(ii) may not offset the amount of the 

voucher against any other rebate or discount 

otherwise being offered by the dealer or manufacturer. 

(D) JOINT OWNERSHIP.—Not more than 1 

voucher may be issued to the joint owners of 

an eligible high fuel consumption automobile, unless such automobile is operated 

by an eligible fleet operator. 

(E) NO COMBINATION OF VOUCHERS.—A person may not apply 2 or more vouchers issued 

under the Program toward the purchase of a 

single fuel efficient automobile. 

(F) COMBINATION WITH OTHER INCENTIVES

PERMITTED.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the availability or use of a 

Federal or State tax incentive or a Stateissued voucher for the purchase of a fuel efficient automobile shall not limit the value or 

issuance of a voucher under the Program to 

any person or eligible fleet operator otherwise eligible to receive such a voucher. 

(G) DURATION.—Each voucher shall expire 2 

years after the date on which the voucher is 

issued and may not be renewed. 

(H) PROMPT FULFILLMENT OF REDEMPTION

REQUESTS REQUIRED.—The Secretary shall 

provide for the payment of all vouchers submitted to the Secretary for redemption in 

accordance with the provisions of this Act 

not later than 60 days after such submission, 

or within such lesser period as the Secretary 

determines to be practicable. 

(I) NUMBER AND AMOUNT.—The total number and value of vouchers issued under the 

Program may not exceed the amounts appropriated for such purpose. 

(2) CONSUMER EDUCATION PROGRAM.—The 

Secretary shall carry out a consumer education program aimed at informing persons 

about the Program, its fuel economy purposes, and the availability of vouchers under 

the Program. 

(3) TRANSIT FARE CREDITS.—The Secretary 

shall promulgate regulations that allow operators of bus and rail public transit systems 

to redeem vouchers properly issued to any 

person under this Act to offset the purchase 

price of annual transit passes or any other 

form of individual transit fare credit designated by the transit system operator. Participating transit system operators shall establish the terms and conditions for the ownership, use, and expiration of any transit 

fare credits acquired through the use of a 

voucher issued under this Act. 

(4) DISPOSITION OF ELIGIBLE HIGH FUEL CONSUMPTION AUTOMOBILES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Any automobile dealer, 

dismantler, or scrap recycling facility who 

receives a certificate of title to any eligible 

high fuel consumption automobile in exchange for a voucher under the Program 

shall certify to the Secretary, in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by rule, 

that such automobile and engine— 

(i) have been crushed or shredded within 

such period as the Secretary prescribes; 

(ii) have been processed prior to crushing 

or shredding to ensure the removal and appropriate disposition of refrigerants, antifreeze, lead products, mercury switches, and 

such other toxic or hazardous vehicle components as the Secretary may specify by rule; 

and 

(iii) have not been, and will not be, sold, 

leased, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of 

for use as an automobile in the United 

States or in any other country. 

(B) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in subparagraph (A) may be construed to preclude 

a dismantler from— 

(i) selling any parts of such scrapped automobile other than the engine block and drive 

train for use as replacement parts; or 

(ii) retaining the proceeds from such sale. 

(C) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall coordinate with the Attorney General to ensure that the National Motor Vehicle Title 

Information System is appropriately updated to reflect the crushing or shredding of 

high fuel consumption automobiles under 

this section. 

(f) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 120 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall promulgate regulations 

to implement the Program, including— 

(1) the removal and disposition of toxic or 

hazardous materials from eligible high fuel 

consumption vehicles presented for participation in the program; and 

(2) the enforcement of the penalties described in section 4. 

(g) DISCLAIMER.—Nothing in this Act or 

any other provision of law limits the authority of Congress or the Secretary to terminate or limit the Program or the issuance of 

vouchers under the Program. 

SEC. 4. PENALTIES. 

(a) VIOLATION.—It shall be unlawful for any 

person to violate any provision under this 

Act or any regulations issued pursuant to 

section 3(f). 

(b) PENALTIES.—Any person who commits a 

violation described in subsection (a) shall be 

liable to the United States Government for a 

civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each 

violation. A separate violation shall be 

deemed to have occurred for each day the 

person continues to be in violation of any 

provision under this Act. 

SEC. 5. REPORT. 

The Secretary shall submit a report to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

of the Senate and the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce of the House of Representatives every 6 months that specifies, for the 

most recent 6-month period— 

(1) the number of vouchers which have 

been used under the Program; and 

(2) the make, model, model year, location 

of sale, and manufacturing location of each 

vehicle traded in or purchased under the Program. 

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated, 

for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014, 

such sums as may be necessary to carry out 

this Act, which sums shall remain available 

until expended. 

By Mr. BOND: 

S. 248. A bill to prohibit the use of 

certain interrogation techniques and 

for other purposes; to the Select Committee on Intelligence. 

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2009. This bill is 

identical to one I introduced last summer, along with Senators HATCH, 

CHAMBLISS, BURR, and WARNER. Last 

week, my colleague and good friend on 

the Intelligence Committee, Senator 

FEINSTEIN, introduced a bill that, 

among other things, requires all intelligence interrogations to be conducted 

only in accordance with the Army 

Field Manual. The Army Field Manual 

was designed to monitor and to describe the techniques which could be 

used by the many thousands and tens 

of thousands of Army personnel who 

might be engaged in interrogating people caught in field operations. Unfortunately, I believe this is the wrong approach. 

First, the Army Field Manual is a 

document that can be changed by the 

Secretary of the Army without ever 

coming back to Congress. It was meant 

to deal with Army personnel—the fine 

men and women of the Army. The next 

problem is that by setting legislative 

standards according to a departmental 

policy manual, Congress, in effect, 

would be ceding our legislative function to the Secretary of the Army. 

Even more importantly, I don’t believe 

we should have a one-size-fits-all approach when we are talking about interrogations that would be conducted 

by the military or the FBI over here or 

the CIA over here and a host of other 

different agencies, all with different 

missions and priorities. 

Mr. President, if you have followed 

the history of intelligence from the 

post-9/11 system, you know there are 

certain high-value detainees—who are 

captured on infrequent occasions—who 

are questioned at length by skilled interrogators to find out the details of 

potential plans of which they know— 

attacks on allies or in our country. It 

is different from capturing somebody 

in the field who might be able to yield 

tactical intelligence but certainly has 

no strategic intelligence. We are much 

safer today because we have been able 

to garner intelligence from high-value 

detainees who have known about a 

broad range of people involved and 

those potential operations they may 

undertake. 

The final, and perhaps the most important reason not to limit interrogation techniques for other agencies beyond the Army—to limit them to that 

published in the field manual—is because broadcasting to al-Qaida and 

other terrorists exactly what techniques will be used in interrogating 

them is a recipe for failure. We know 

these high-value targets, the people 

who are leaders of these organizations, 

will train for whatever techniques we 

tell them we are using. It is not too 

hard to figure out that if we tell them 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE