PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6262-6265)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 8, 2009
Short Term Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act of 2009 - Establishes in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) a Cash for Clunkers Temporary Vehicle Trade-In Program through which the Secretary of Transportation, acting through NHTSA, shall: (1) authorize the issuance of a voucher to offset the purchase or lease price for a fuel efficient automobile upon the transfer of the eligible trade-in vehicle title to a participating dealer; (2) register dealers for Program participation; (3) make payments to them for eligible transactions they accept between specified dates; and (4) establish and provide for the enforcement of measures to prevent and penalize fraud under the Program.
Prescribes requirements, including combined fuel economy, for $1,000, $2,500, $3,500, and $4,500 vouchers to offset the purchase or lease price for a previously owned (model year 2004 or after) or new fuel efficient passenger automobile or truck.
Limits the number of vouchers to one per customer, including joint registered owners of a single eligible trade-in vehicle.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires a dealer to certify that each eligible trade-in vehicle: (1) has been or will be crushed or shredded, or transferred to an entity that will ensure it will be crushed or shredded, within the period of the Program; and (2) has 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.
Makes it unlawful for any person to violate this Act or any regulations issued under it, particularly by fraud. Prescribes civil penalties for any such violation.
Directs the Secretary to make Program information available on an Internet website and through other means.
Sets forth procedures for expedited congressional consideration of any proposed presidential rescission of discretionary budget authority under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
People & committees
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6262-6265)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6260-6262)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1200 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1200 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1200 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1200 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.