Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 746, As Modified

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 779

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Feinstein and Stevens, I offer an amendment to prohibit funding from being used in fiscal 2004 for research, development, test and evaluation, procurement, or deployment of nuclear-tipped ballistic missile defense intercepts.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 796

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared. I urge the Senate to adopt it.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Would the Presiding Officer hold for one moment. The amendment is agreed to on this side.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is indeed cleared.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 759

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bill Nelson, I offer an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should authorize and publicize a reward of $1 million for information leading to a conclusive resolution of the cases of missing members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 798

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 797

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Lieberman that would provide for a Department of Defense strategy for the management of the electromagnetic spectrum. I believe it is cleared on both sides.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for this very important amendment. The bill before the Senate, unless this amendment passes or the Warner amendment passes, removes a 10-year prohibition we have had on research and development of new nuclear weapons that could lead to their production. Yesterday, we were assured by speaker after speaker who supports removal of that prohibition that all that is intended is to remove the prohibition of research. So the amendment of Senator Reed says, let us put that, then, clearly, into this bill; that what will be prohibited will be the development of new nuclear weapons. What is very disturbing and why this amendment is so essential, the administration's position is reflected by the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Energy, a man named Fred Celec, who says that if a hydrogen bomb can be successfully designed to survive a crash through hard rock, it will get fielded. We have been assured by the opponents of the prohibition that, no, this is just research we are talking about. So the amendment of Senator Reed puts that clearly into law that what we are now allowing is research; that the prohibition on development will stay. That is a very important, clear message to the rest of the world. We are telling North Korea we do not want you to go there. We may militarily act to prevent you from going to the development and the production of new nuclear weapons. So it is essential that this body send a clear statement that we still have a prohibition on development, although now research would be permitted. I thank, also, Senator Warner. Even though I think the Reed amendment is clearly better, and the message stronger that we are not removing the prohibition on development by allowing the research, Senator Warner's second-degree amendment is also a constructive addition to this debate and would be surely better than not acting at all.

Mr. LEVIN. I note that Senator Kerry has been working very hard in this area. I want to make that clear for the record, because of his strong interest and support for this approach. Again, I very much thank the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Missouri for their strong initiative in this area.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 1 minute.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will indicate our strong support for this amendment. A few years ago, we actually made an effort to get this amendment, or something very close to it, adopted. In fact, it was in our bill. It went to conference, where we ran into a real roadblock. We are going to give it a go again. In addition to the usual suspects, we have the two Senators from Maine and Missouri who will be with us in conference, and I am very hopeful that this time, with their support, we will be able to get it over the goal line with the House, because that is where the impediment was a few years ago. It is an important amendment. I very much support it. In fact, I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 100th anniversary of Ford Motor Company. On June 16, 1903, Henry Ford, one of Michigan's most famous sons, founded Ford Motor Company. It is seldom in history that one person or company makes such a dramatic, lasting impact on society. Thomas Edison modernized the light bulb and changed the way we see the world. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, and communication was changed forever. Henry Ford brought the automobile to the working family, and revolutionized manufacturing, transportation, and everyday American life. It would certainly be difficult to overestimate the importance of Ford Motor Company on the American way of life. When it was founded, virtually no one owned an automobile. The personal mobility we take for granted today was unfathomable at the turn of the last century. But that was to change rapidly. Within 25 years of its founding, Ford manufactured more than 15 million Model T's, at a price that made them accessible to the working family. Today, there are over 200 million cars and light trucks on the road in the United States--more than 1 for every licensed driver. The founding of this company has become a legend. With $28,000 in cash, Ford and 11 associates founded what would become one of the world's largest corporations. The first moving assembly line was put into operation in Highland Park, MI, in 1913. This plant could produce a complete chassis in about an hour and a half--eight times faster than before. At the same time, Ford began paying his workers $5 per day--more than double the industry average wage. This high salary attracted workers to Michigan from around the country and the world. The influx of immigrants was so great that many have called the Ford River Rouge complex the Michigan-annex of Ellis Island. Henry Ford was one of the first industrialists to hire African Americans. With the belief that hiring African Americans would help racial problems, he reached out to the Black community. By the onset of World War II, roughly half of Detroit's African-American workingmen were on Ford's payroll. Ford Motor Company has a long history of producing memorable automobiles, from the Tin Lizzie to the Explorer. In 1954, Ford introduced the Thunderbird, a symbol of postwar optimism. The Ford Mustang, introduced in 1964, quickly became synonymous with the American free spirit and has remained a classic American car for almost 40 years. In 1991, the Ford Explorer defined the SUV segment of the market, and remains the best selling SUV in the world. Ford's commitment to quality and innovation continues today. Ford, the world's second largest automaker, will have a hybrid--part electric, part gasoline powered--SUV available by 2004. Ford has also produced a cutting-edge hybrid fuel cell car, and is dedicated to bringing hydrogen-powered vehicles to the market in the future. I am proud of Ford Motor Company's accomplishments over the last 100 years. I am glad Ford calls Michigan home, and I enthusiastically offer my support for the resolution commemorating Ford's centennial anniversary.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Voinovich in introducing the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003. Our bill will allow States to get back more of what they contribute in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. We do this by increasing the Federal minimum guaranteed funding level for highways from the current 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions made to the Federal Highway Trust Fund in gas tax payments to 95 percent. Increasing this minimum guarantee to 95 percent will bring us one step closer to achieving fairness in the distribution of Federal highway funds to States. Historically about 20 States, including Michigan, known as ``donor'' States, have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in Washington than were returned in transportation infrastructure spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have received more transportation funding than they paid into the Highway Trust Fund. This came about in 1956 when a number of small States and large Western States banded together to develop a formula to distribute Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would benefit from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have tenaciously defended it. At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low- population predominately Western States getting more funds than they contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that. However, there is no justification for any state getting more than its fair share. Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long struggle to change these outdated formulas. Through these battles, some progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5 cent minimum return for each State. We still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and other States on the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to pay for badly needed transportation improvements in Michigan and the jobs that go with it. According to Federal Highway Administration calculations, Michigan would have received an additional $42 million in FY 02 under the Voinovich-Levin 95 percent minimum guarantee bill. That's a critically important difference for Michigan each year. The same is true for other donor States that stand to get back millions more of their gas tax dollars currently being sent to other States. There is no logical reason for some States to continue to send that money to other States to subsidize their road and bridge projects and to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair. With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to determine how much a State will receive from the Highway Trust Fund are antiquated and do not relate to what a State's real needs or contributions are. The Voinovich-Levin bill is consensus bill developed with the help of donor State Department of Transportation agencies and their coalition working group. This legislation would increase the minimum guarantee from 90.5 percent to 95 percent for all States. A companion bill is being introduced in the House today by majority leader Tom DeLay and Representative Barron Hill. With this legislation, we intend to send a strong message to the authorizing committees that they should address the equity issue in the Senate and House highway reauthorization bills. We are determined to make progress in this bill to redistribute the highway funds in a more equitable manner so that every State gets its fair share. This is an issue of equity and we will not be satisfied until we achieve it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Voinovich in introducing the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003. Our bill will allow States to get back more of what they contribute in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. We do this by increasing the Federal minimum guaranteed funding level for highways from the current 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions made to the Federal Highway Trust Fund in gas tax payments to 95 percent. Increasing this minimum guarantee to 95 percent will bring us one step closer to achieving fairness in the distribution of Federal highway funds to States. Historically about 20 States, including Michigan, known as ``donor'' States, have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in Washington than were returned in transportation infrastructure spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have received more transportation funding than they paid into the Highway Trust Fund. This came about in 1956 when a number of small States and large Western States banded together to develop a formula to distribute Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would benefit from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have tenaciously defended it. At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low- population predominately Western States getting more funds than they contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that. However, there is no justification for any state getting more than its fair share. Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long struggle to change these outdated formulas. Through these battles, some progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5 cent minimum return for each State. We still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and other States on the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to pay for badly needed transportation improvements in Michigan and the jobs that go with it. According to Federal Highway Administration calculations, Michigan would have received an additional $42 million in FY 02 under the Voinovich-Levin 95 percent minimum guarantee bill. That's a critically important difference for Michigan each year. The same is true for other donor States that stand to get back millions more of their gas tax dollars currently being sent to other States. There is no logical reason for some States to continue to send that money to other States to subsidize their road and bridge projects and to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair. With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to determine how much a State will receive from the Highway Trust Fund are antiquated and do not relate to what a State's real needs or contributions are. The Voinovich-Levin bill is consensus bill developed with the help of donor State Department of Transportation agencies and their coalition working group. This legislation would increase the minimum guarantee from 90.5 percent to 95 percent for all States. A companion bill is being introduced in the House today by majority leader Tom DeLay and Representative Barron Hill. With this legislation, we intend to send a strong message to the authorizing committees that they should address the equity issue in the Senate and House highway reauthorization bills. We are determined to make progress in this bill to redistribute the highway funds in a more equitable manner so that every State gets its fair share. This is an issue of equity and we will not be satisfied until we achieve it.