GM supports the bill. Chrysler did not directly back the legislation but said it was encouraged by the progress.
Even with the tougher provisions added, at least a half-dozen Senate opponents said they preferred that the companies seek bankruptcy protection now and restructure afterward rather than get government help.
"I think there's still some effort that has to be made," said Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), a strong supporter of the auto industry who said he would vote for the legislation.
Democrats hold a narrow 50-49 Senate majority and they need at least 10 Republicans to vote for the bailout to overcome procedural hurdles.
Centrist Republicans such as Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota said they were undecided. Coleman echoed several other lawmakers in saying he wanted the car czar to have more power to force the companies, unions and other stakeholders to restructure.
One of the leading opponents, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), called the bill a "travesty" that would remove the incentive for the automakers to make major changes and lead to billions more in government money in the future.
"Unless Chrysler, Ford and General Motors become lean and innovative and competitive in the marketplace, this is only delaying their funeral," Shelby said.
The size of the bailout was reduced from $15 billion in previous drafts to the $14 billion GM and Chrysler said they needed. At White House insistence, the money comes from an existing $25-billion loan fund created to help U.S. automakers retool their factories to make more energy-efficient cars. The bill authorized Congress to replenish the fund, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has promised to do early next year.
The final sticking point was overcome when congressional Democrats removed a provision to require automakers to stop funding lawsuits against California and more than a dozen other states over new limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The White House told Democratic leaders there was no chance the bill would pass if that provision remained.
But the new state emissions standards continued to complicate the legislation, resulting in the House and Senate considering two slightly different versions that could further delay final action.
The House version requires automakers taking money "to comply with applicable fuel efficiency and emissions requirements." But some Senate Republicans balked at the language, noting that it encompassed the new state limits in California and elsewhere.
The version of the bill introduced by Senate Democrats says automakers must comply with only federal emissions rules. The different versions would have to be reconciled before any bill could go to President Bush for his signature.
--
jim.puzzanghera @latimes.com
janet.hook@latimes.com
