Date: 2009-12-10
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 and urge its swift consideration by our colleagues in the Senate. This legislation includes final conference reports for the FY 2010 TransportationHUD. CommerceJusticeScience. Financial Services. LaborHHSEducation. Military ConstructionVA and StateForeign Operations bills. Its total funding of $446.8 billion makes priority investments in infrastructure. health care. and education. while supporting our veterans. funding the upcoming census and honestly accounting for war costs previously left to supplementals. Remaining items in the bill are limited to a 1% funding increase. The $50 billion in infrastructure spending in this billincluding $150 million for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritywill enable us to modernize our aging infrastructure. ease congestion. facilitate commerce and create goodpaying. homegrown American jobs. To further bolster our economic recovery. HR 3288 provides $824 million to the Small Business Administration for its work helping our jobgenerating small businesses succeed. This investment will help facilitate an additional $28 billion in new lending to small businesses. I am delighted that the National Institutes of Health is funded at $31 billion so that it can continue driving scientific innovation and health system reform. Finally. I am especially pleased that the Financial Services division of this consolidated legislation sets up a fair and reasonable process by which profitable auto dealers can have an opportunity to get back into business so that they and their employees can play their part in supporting our ongoing economic recovery. In that regard. I ask that the full text of the attached statement be entered into the legislative RECORD. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my appreciation that language has been included in the Financial Services Appropriations Conference Report that will give automobile dealers around the nation a fair and reasonable shot at getting back into business. For the past several months. I have been pleased to join with Majority Leader HOYER. Congressmen KRATOVIL and MAFFEI. and others to ensure that profitable car dealers have every opportunity to contribute to our economic recovery and put their employees back to work. Profitable and viable dealers should have never been terminated in the first place. and I was proud to join the fight to have these shortsighted decisions reversed. Automobile manufacturers wont be able to get back on their feet without a strong dealer network. and Congress is committed to ensuring that such a network exists. I salute the tenacity and determination of these small business owners. many of whom have been selling cars and supporting the American auto industry for decades. Under the provision we are approving today. these terminated dealers will have an opportunity. once again. to do what they do bestsell and service cars. And that is good for our economy. for job creation and for the American car industry. It would have been my preference that we would not need to legislate on this matter. We convened talks with the auto dealer groups and the manufacturers and while both sides offered significant concessions. efforts to achieve a nonlegislative solution failed when auto manufacturers offered plans that fell short of what was needed to add dealers to their dealer networks and put their employees back to work. As 2009 comes to a close. the federal government still maintains a substantial financial stake in Chrysler and General Motors and therefore in the United States automobile industry. Clearly. it is in the national interest to have the domestic automobile industry regain profitability and maintain sufficient dealerships to meet consumer demand. Section 747 of the Financial Services Appropriations division of this bill recognizes the valuable role that dealers play in the auto industry and our local economies. Automobile dealers are essential to the success of automobile manufacturers because at no material cost to the manufacturers. they facilitate distribution. sales. and servicing of hundreds of millions of vehicles annually. This legislation is premised on the notion that it is in the best interest of automobile manufacturers. the automotive industry. dealers and the public to have an extensive and competitive automobile distribution network throughout the country. including in urban. suburban and rural areas. Section 747 mandates that manufacturers promptly provide covered auto dealers in writing the specific criteria and supporting data relied upon by a manufacturer in its decision to end or wind down the dealership relationship. In the spirit of cooperation and to ensure an efficient process as this legislation is implemented. we expect that the manufacturers will provide the information in a format that is user friendly. clearly identifies facts. readily accessible. and understandable by the dealer and that the data may be transmitted either by mail or electronically. We intend that this process provide transparency and avoid the excessive costs and delays of litigation and discovery disputes. The manufacturers should provide their respective covered dealers with each and every detail and criterion related to the evaluations of the dealership and the decisions to terminate. not assign. not renew or discontinue. It is anticipated that the manufacturers will be cooperative and forthcoming and that all relevant information will be provided promptly. It further provides such dealers with the opportunity to participate in a neutral arbitration process designed for the dealer to make the case for being added to the manufacturers dealer network. Congress has included specific timeliness for this process and we expect both parties to the arbitration to act in good faith and expeditiously so that added dealers can return to fullfledged operations quickly. Section 747 expressly permits the manufacturer and dealer to present any kind of relevant information during the arbitration and provides that the arbitrator shall decide whether the dealer should be added to the manufacturers dealer network based on a balancing of the interests of the dealer. the manufacturer. and the general public. The public interest includes reasonably convenient access for consumers to a dealer who can service their vehicles. which is of particular concern in rural areas where many dealers were terminated in 2009. It has been wellreported that more and more individuals have to drive substantial distances to obtain service from an authorized dealer of a specific brand because of a dealer termination. Congress has provided seven enumerated factors for the arbitrator to consider. but this list is not exhaustive because the legislation provides that the parties can introduce "any relevant information." For example. we expect that arbitrators should consider relevant State laws. which provide a context for analyzing franchise agreements and the obligations of dealers and manufacturers. A couple of these enumerated criteria merit additional explanation. For example. Congress has directed that the demographic and geographic characteristics of the market are taken into account. This reflects our intention that the arbitrator should pay special attention to the concerns expressed by some terminated dealers that there are factors in their market areas or States that affect their performance and render some measurements. such as State averages. less than accurate in portraying the true picture of a dealers operations. Another one of the factors involves the dealers performance under the franchise agreement terminated in 2009. In considering this factor and related factors. it is important for arbitrators to recognize that state law is part and parcel of and modifies auto dealer franchise agreements. To look only at a franchise agreement. in other words. misses an important contextual element. Accordingly. it is anticipated that the arbitrators will consider State law elements of good faith and fair dealing in this process and that. for example. the franchise agreements performance standards and a dealers performance under the original agreement will be evaluated in accordance with State law. Another factor is the historic profitability of the dealership. During the legislative process. Congress learned that some dealers. for tax planning reasons or other reasons use a variety of legitimate. widely recognized accounting conventions. such as LIFO. that could. depending on the date a snapshot is taken. affect materially whether the dealership appears profitable. It is important that arbitrators recognize such accounting conventions when considering the profitability of a dealership so a fair and accurate picture is obtained. With respect to being added back to a dealer network. it is the intent of Congress that notwithstanding the preference of a manufacturer to have several brands in the same dealership. in the case of a dealer seeking to be added to a dealer network but with fewer than all of the preferred brands. the dealer nonetheless will be eligible to be added. It is worth noting that pursuant to subsection (f). manufacturers and dealers may. of their own volition. decide to enter into legally binding agreements with one another instead of going through the arbitration process. It is the intent of Congress that for this subsection to apply. the legally binding agreements shall be consensual. noncoercive resolutions of the issue between the dealer and the manufacturer entered into or ratified after the date of enactment. Coercive agreements should not be upheld. In conclusion. I want to recognize the tireless efforts of dealers from around the Nation who worked to develop and implement a truly historic grassroots effort over the past seven months. Groups such as the Committee to Restore Dealer Rights. the Automobile Trade Association Executives. National Automobile Dealers Association and the National Association of Minority Auto Dealers. were instrumental in bringing about the legislation we are approving today.