Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies a very important program in my State. The Environmental Protection Agency's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, MI, leads EPA's Clean Automotive Technology Program by facilitating collaboration with the automotive industry through innovative research to achieve ultra low-pollution emissions, increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases. One of the programs that has been developed collaboratively through the Ann Arbor laboratory and its industry partners is the hydraulic hybrid technology which has come out of the laboratory's focus areas in hydraulic hybrid research, engine research, alternative fuels research and technical and analytical support. This technology offers potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget increases the Climate Protection Program line in EPA's budget, which includes this facility, and I appreciate the subcommittee's concurrence with the request in the bill before the Senate. It is my understanding that the version of the bill adopted by the House of Representatives provides an additional $1.6 million over the fiscal year 2010 budget request. Is that also the understanding of the Senator from California?

Mr. LEVIN. I hope to provide additional funding for this program in order to fund a demonstration program to deploy hybrid hydraulic technology in larger fleet vehicles, such as school buses. Demonstration of this hybrid hydraulic technology, through its incorporation into a fleet of school buses, would not only bring these fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly technologies closer to wide-scale viability and acceptance but also provide EPA with important data to support its work in developing achievable standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. As the conference committee considers the differences between the House and Senate bills, I am hopeful that the additional $1.6 million included in the House bill will be maintained and that serious consideration will be given to directing this funding to demonstration of the hybrid hydraulic technology I have described.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished Senator. New York's Northeastern States Research Cooperative Funding

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for this bill to provide $32 billion in funding for a variety of important environmental and infrastructure purposes. This bill would provide clean drinking water, prevent pollution from contaminating our precious natural resources, clean up hazardous waste sites, protect lands for habitat preservation and recreation, improve vehicle efficiency, and help restore the Great Lakes. I am pleased this bill includes $400 million for Great Lakes restoration and protection efforts through a new effort called the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI. The GLRI is a multiagency effort to address the array of current and historic threats facing the Great Lakes including invasive aquatic species, nonpoint source pollution, and contaminated sediment. While I appreciate the significant investment in the Great Lakes, I have encouraged the bill managers to provide the full funding requested for the GLRI. The President requested $475 million for the GLRI, and the Environmental Protection Agency has prepared a spending plan for the full funding. Full funding is needed now and would be well spent. A 2003 GAO report on Great Lakes federal restoration programs stated: ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently, scientists report that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and changes to how water flows. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected ecosystem response.'' The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We must recognize that we are only their temporary stewards. If Congress does not act to keep pace with the needs of the lakes, and the tens of millions of Americans dependent upon them and affected by their condition, the problems will continue to build and we may start to undo some of the important work that has already been done and is underway. We must be good stewards by providing the resources that the Federal Government needs to meet its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This bill will help us meet that great responsibility to future generations. Importantly, the bill would provide $1.4 billion to capitalize the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and $2.1 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for wastewater projects. The funding in the Senate bill more than doubles the amount provided in the fiscal year 2009 bill. I had urged appropriators to provide this increase because Michigan's water infrastructure needs are sizable. Michigan would receive about $41 million for drinking water and $88 million for wastewater projects, protecting public health, improving the environment, and creating a stronger economic climate. I am also pleased this bill provides $2.7 billion for our National Park Service, an increase of $200 million from last year's level, which I supported. Michigan has six national park units, and this funding would help ensure these resources are adequately maintained and protected. The national parks have been struggling for years with inadequate funding and large maintenance and construction backlogs. This funding would help meet these needs so that our Nation's natural and cultural heritage is preserved. Over a million people visited Michigan's national parks last year, and it is important that visitors find our parks in good condition and that we do the same for future generations. I am pleased to see this bill includes the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Protection Program, which includes the Clean Automotive Technology Program. EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, MI, leads the Clean Automotive Technology Program by facilitating collaboration with the automotive industry through innovative research to achieve ultra low-pollution emissions, increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases. An example of the work done collaboratively through this program at the Ann Arbor laboratory with its industry partners is development of hydraulic hybrid technology that offers potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent. The House bill includes an additional $1.6 million for the Climate Protection Program, and I am hopeful this additional funding will be maintained in conference and that serious consideration will be given to directing this funding to deployment of hybrid hydraulic technology in larger fleet vehicles, such as schoolbuses. Mr. President, this appropriations bill would protect our natural resources and the Great Lakes in particular, provide communities with safe drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, improve fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases, and protect and improve public lands and parks, and I support its passage.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the man whose voice was the sound of summer, to the man who guided Michiganders through baseball seasons for more than 40 years. I rise in tribute to Ernie Harwell. For those who love baseball and the Detroit Tigers, Ernie Harwell's easy Georgia drawl on a summer evening has been a tonic after a hard day's toil. He has been our eyes and ears at the corner of Michigan and Trumbull and, later, at the team's new downtown ballpark. Since 1960, when Ernie broadcast his first Tigers game, until today, perhaps no person, no player nor manager, has been more closely identified with Tigers baseball. Certainly none has formed so strong an emotional tie with the fans of our team. Ernie grew up in Atlanta, and he often tells fans that as a boy he was tongue-tied, coping with a speech impediment, but with therapy and hard work, he turned his voice into a tool so powerful it brought the game to life. His first broadcasting job was with the minor league team in his hometown, but in 1948, when broadcasting legend Red Barber of the Brooklyn Dodgers fell ill, Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey called down to Atlanta. He asked if he could bring up young Ernie to fill Barber's seat at Ebbets Field. OK, the Atlanta general manager replied, but you will have to give me something in return. And so Ernie became the first and so far only broadcaster in baseball history to be included in a trade, sent to Brooklyn for a minor league catcher. That was one of Branch Rickey's finest deals. In Brooklyn and then in Baltimore, Ernie honed his craft and won the admiration of fans. He was the television broadcaster for one of the most famous moments in baseball history, Bobby Thompson's ``Shot Heard Round the World'' in 1951. The national networks began to tap his talent for other events, such as pro and college football games and the Masters golf tournament. And then, in 1960, he came to Detroit. It is hard to describe to those who aren't from Michigan or fans of the Tigers just what Ernie Harwell meant to us over the next five decades. His voice on the radio guided us through good seasons and bad, through our city's times of prosperity and of tragedy. Through that ebb and flow he was a constant, his voice never too excited, never too downcast. We rejoiced when he told us an opposing batter took strike three ``like the house by the side of the road,'' chuckled as he reported a foul ball had become a souvenir for a fan from Detroit or Howell or Warren or Lansing, or another town Michigan fans recognized. In the first days of every March, at the opening of his very first broadcast of spring training, Ernie announced the official end of Michigan winter with a reading from the Song of Solomon: ``For lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; the flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land.'' But over the decades, Ernie became more to us than just a welcome voice on the radio. He became a friend. For as good as he was behind the microphone, he is an even better man, and the quality of his character shone brightly, on his broadcasts and on the countless times he greeted fans with a hearty hello, or treated a clubhouse attendant with the same respect and affection as the million-dollar ballplayer. We came to respect and honor his voice, but to cherish his great heart. This beloved friend is hurting now. His illness, he tells us without a trace of bitterness, will soon take him from us. But as he faces what he calls the end of his journey, the greatness of his heart has once again shined forth. Last night, the Tigers took a break from the heat of another pennant race to pay tribute to this legend and friend. Amid the cheers and tears, Ernie once again put the fans first. Here is what he said: ``In my almost 92 years on this earth, the good Lord has blessed me with a great journey, and the blessed part of that journey is it's going to end here in the great state of Michigan. ``I deeply appreciate the great people of Michigan. I love their grit. I love the way they face life. I love the family values they have. And you Tiger fans are the greatest fans of all. No question about that.'' There is an example of true courage and grace for all of us to try to follow. Soon, this great voice will be silenced, a great heart stilled. But Ernie Harwell's love of the game, his humanity, his courage, will remain with us always. I treasure the moments I have spent with him. I thank him for the hours of joy he has given me, my wife and children, and the people of Michigan. I wish him and his beloved wife Lulu all the joy they deserve.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish today to remember the life of an extraordinary woman. Belle Ackerman Lipman passed away at her home in Memphis, TN, on Aug. 17, 2009, in the 100th year of her remarkable life. A beloved wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, and friend, Mrs. Lipman is a model for all of us who hope to live life fully and for all the years granted us. A daughter of Romanian immigrants, Belle Ackerman was born in 1910 in Philadelphia, where her parents owned a general store. Just five blocks away from the store lived young Mark Lipman, who would become the love of Belle's life. The businessman and his young wife moved not long after their marriage to Little Rock, AR, where Mark saw new business opportunities, and then in 1958 to Memphis, TN. There, Belle Lipman became a pillar of the community. Her work in civic affairs was extensive, including service as a trustee with the Simon Wiesenthal Center. She was president of the Little Rock chapter of Hadassah, the worldwide Jewish women's organization, among a host of endeavors in charity, service, and the arts. But it is not those remarkable accomplishments alone that made Belle Lipman such a special woman. As years passed, her zest for life, for new experience, and to learn of new cultures grew apace. A lifelong interest in travel made her one of the first American citizens to travel to China after diplomatic relations with that Nation were reestablished in 1979. Her travels took her to a hot-air balloon over the plains of Kenya, the rivers of the Amazon, and the ancient cities of Peru. She rode the Orient Express at the age of 87. At 92, she crossed the Arctic Circle. At 95, she visited the mountains of Tibet and a host of other places. At her 95th birthday party, she celebrated the only way she knew how, with verve by dancing the Charleston. Belle Lipman was a model--a model of how to live life to the fullest and how a thirst for new experiences can fill a lifetime. My wife Barbara and I send our condolences to her beloved children, her son Ira and her daughter Carol, her grandchildren, and her great-grandchildren. We do so with the sure knowledge that the joy of Belle Lipman's life will over time ease the pain of her passing, leaving the warmest of memories to sustain family and friends.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I would like to express my support for the proposed resolution which I believe will enable both of our committees to fulfill their responsibilities for ensuring that the nominations to head these important intelligence elements within the Department of Defense are thoroughly considered. I thank my distinguished colleague on the Armed Services Committee, our ranking member, Senator McCain, and our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee for reaching this agreement. Exhibit 1 111th CONGRESS 1st Session S. Res. __ Amending Senate Resolution 400 (94th Congress) to clarify the responsibility of committees of the Senate in the provision of the advice and consent of the Senate to nominations to positions in the intelligence community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today we mark a solemn anniversary. Eight years ago this morning, our Nation was attacked by terrorist extremists motivated by hatred and bent on destruction. It is always appropriate to reflect on the shock of that day, the innocent lives lost, and the efforts our Nation has made since that day to ensure that Afghanistan, the nation that hosted those terrorists, cannot again become a safe haven for terrorists seeking to attack us. But today is an especially appropriate occasion to take stock of those efforts and consider how best to continue them. I recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan where I was joined by my colleagues, Senators Jack Reed and Ted Kaufman. The situation in Afghanistan is serious. Security has deteriorated. But if we take the right steps, we can ensure Afghanistan does not revert to a Taliban- friendly government that can once again provide a safe haven for al- Qaida to terrorize us and the world. The Obama administration's new strategy focusing on securing the Afghan population's safety and partnering with the Afghan security forces in that effort is an important start in reversing the situation in Afghanistan. The change in strategy has led our forces, in the words of General McChrystal's Counterinsurgency Guidance, to: . . . live, eat and train together [with the Afghan security forces], plan and operate together, depend on one another, and hold each other accountable . . . and treat them as equal partners in success. The general's guidance goes on to say that the success of the Afghan security forces ``is our goal.'' To achieve that goal, we should increase and accelerate our efforts to support the Afghan security forces in their efforts to become self- sufficient in delivering security to their nation before we consider whether to increase U.S. combat forces above the levels already planned for the next few months. These steps include increasing the size of the Afghan Army and police much faster than presently planned; providing more trainers for the Afghan Army and police than presently planned; providing them with more equipment than presently planned; and working to separate local Taliban fighters from their leaders and attract them to the side of the government, as we did in Iraq. While the security situation in Afghanistan has worsened, we still have important advantages there. The Afghan people hate the Taliban. Public opinion polls there show support for the Taliban at about 5 percent. In addition, the Afghan Army is highly motivated and its troops are proven fighters. Despite those advantages, we face significant challenges. General McChrystal believes--and I agree--that we need to regain the initiative and create a momentum toward success. General McChrystal worries, and rightly so, about the perception that we have lost that initiative and the impact of that perception on the Afghan people, their government, al-Qaida, and the Taliban. By contrast, if we can dispel that perception, we have a chance to convince local and lower level Taliban fighters to lay down their arms and rejoin Afghan society. I believe the most effective way to retake the initiative in Afghanistan is with a series of steps to ensure that the Afghan Army and police have the manpower, equipment, and support to secure their own nation. First, we should increase troop levels for the Afghan Army and police faster than currently planned. There are approximately 90,000 troops in the Afghan Army now, and that number is scheduled to go up to 134,000 by October of 2010. The Afghan police are scheduled to reach a level of 82,000 by the same time. For a long time, many of us have urged the establishment of a goal of 240,000 Afghan troops and 160,000 Afghan police by 2013. The Afghan Minister of Defense has strongly supported those numbers. It now appears that our government and the Afghan Government are prepared to accept those goals. But the need for additional Afghan forces is more urgent. I believe it both possible and essential to advance those goals by a year, to 2012. Our own military in Afghanistan has repeatedly pointed to a need for more Afghan forces. In one sector of Helmand Province we visited last week, our marines outnumbered Afghan soldiers by five to one. A marine company commander in Helmand Province told the New York Times in July that a lack of Afghan troops ``is absolutely our Achilles' heel.'' What do we need to do to increase the size of the Afghan Army and police? According to Afghan Defense Minister Wardak, there is no lack of Afghan manpower. We have been assured it is available. But we will need significantly more trainers. We asked General Formica, who is in charge of the American effort to train Afghan security forces, whether such an increase is possible. He indicated he would make an assessment of what would be necessary in order to meet the earlier timetable. In the meantime, we should press our NATO allies with much greater forcefulness to provide more trainers. If our NATO allies are not going to come through with the combat forces they pledged, at least they could provide additional trainers. Larger Afghan security forces will also require more mid-level Afghan officers. In addition to supporting efforts to graduate more Afghan officers from army academies, we should consider the recommendation of Defense Minister Wardak that previous midlevel officers who fought the war against the Soviets return to service on an interim basis. Minister Wardak emphasized that those men are well qualified and well motivated. And while they may not be trained in the most current tactics, they nonetheless could temporarily meet the need of the enlarged army while the new group of officers is trained. A larger Afghan force will need supporting infrastructure, such as barracks. While the available infrastructure may not be the most modern, it is adequate and exists in sufficient amounts. Larger Afghan security forces will require additional equipment. There must be a major effort to transfer a significant amount of the equipment that is coming out of Iraq to the Afghan Army and police. Such a significant commitment to equip the Afghan security forces would also help demonstrate U.S. determination to take the initiative and create momentum in the right direction. There is an enormous amount of equipment coming out of Iraq. Our military is calling it one of the greatest transfers of military goods in world history. A significant part of it could be transferred to the Afghan forces, increasing their capability without weakening our own readiness. Yet there does not seem to be that kind of a crash effort in place to do just that. We need to obtain, on an urgent basis, a list of the basic equipment needs of the Afghan forces and a list of how those needs could be met in a major program to transfer equipment leaving Iraq. Rapidly expanding Afghan's military and police forces would address one of the major problems and risks we now face. General McChrystal told us he worries that waiting until 2013 for a larger Afghan force creates a gap in capabilities that brings significant risk of failure. But if we accelerate the training and equipment of Afghan forces by a year, we address his concern. Depending on additional capability from Afghanistan, rather than U.S. forces, also addresses a major problem of public perception in Afghanistan. The larger our own military footprint there, the more our enemies can seek to drive a wedge between us and the Afghan population, spreading the falsehood that we seek to dominate a Muslim nation. Finally, we should make a concerted effort to separate the local Taliban from their leaders. In Iraq, large numbers of young Iraqis who had been attacking us switched over to our side and became the Sons of Iraq. They were drawn in part by the promise of jobs and amnesty for past attacks and in part by the recognition that the status quo was creating horrific violence in their own communities. In their own interests and the interests of their nation, they switched sides and became a positive force. That same prospect exists in Afghanistan. Afghan leaders and our own military leaders say that local Taliban forces are motivated largely by the need for a job, loyalty to the local leader who pays them, and not by ideology or religious zeal. They believe an effort to attract these fighters to the government side could succeed if they are offered security for themselves and their families and if there is no penalty for previous activity against us. General McChrystal himself has emphasized the potential for such reintegration to accomplish the same result as was achieved in Iraq. Here is what General McChrystal said on July 28: Most of the fight materials we see in Afghanistan are Afghans, some with foreign cadre with them. But most we don't see are deeply ideological or even politically motivated; most are operating for pay; some are under a commander's charismatic leadership; some are frustrated with local leaders. So I believe there is significant potential to go after what I would call mid- and low-level Taliban fighters and leaders and offer them reintegration into Afghanistan under the constitution. But this game-changing possibility was apparently not factored into General McChrystal's assessment. There is no plan yet to put in place a Sons of Iraq approach in Afghanistan. It is urgent that we lay out the steps that need to be taken to involve local and national Afghan leaders in that effort. They alone can accomplish this crucial job, but first we and our Afghan allies must draft such a plan on an urgent basis, and the potential positive impact of such a plan should be taken into account as we consider the need for any additional U.S. military resources. Afghanistan's people are grateful for our aid but also eager to assume responsibility for their own future. In a tiny village in Helmand Province, we were invited to meet with the village elders at their council meeting--called a shura. A group of 100 or so men sat on the floor and chatted with us about their future and their country's future. When asked how long the United States should stay, one elder said: ``Until the moment that you make our security forces self- sufficient. Then you will be welcome to visit us not as soldiers but as guests.'' Helping Afghanistan achieve self-sufficiency and their own security is everybody's goal. On that, there is little difference of opinion in Afghan's village councils or in the corridors of this Capitol. Can we help Afghanistan reach self-sufficiency in security fast enough? Can we get there in a way that regains the initiative and creates the momentum we need? Can we encourage those lower level Taliban to abandon an insurgency headed by terrorists whose fanaticism they do not share? I believe we can, by supporting a far more rapid growth in the Afghan Army and police, by providing more trainers more quickly, by a rapid infusion of two Afghan units of equipment no longer needed in Iraq, and by rapidly adopting a plan for the reintegration of lower level Taliban fighters into Afghan society. In other words, we need a surge of Afghan security forces. Our support of their surge will show our commitment to the success of a mission that is clearly in our national security interest, without creating a bigger U.S. military footprint that provides propaganda fodder for the Taliban. I believe taking those steps on an urgent basis, while completing the previously planned and announced increase in U.S. combat forces, provides the best chance of success for our mission--preventing Afghanistan from again being run by a Taliban government which harbors and supports al-Qaida, whose goal is to inflict additional catastrophic attacks on the United States and the world. I believe we should implement those steps before considering an increase in U.S. ground combat forces beyond what is already planned by the end of the year. I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Ohio as well.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I join today with colleagues to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Senator Ted Kennedy. Each of us has lost a friend with his passing--and all Americans--but especially those in need have lost a champion of government's ability to bring light to dark places. All of us stand in awe of the lengthy record of accomplishment Senator Kennedy leaves us. It was a great privilege to serve many years with Ted Kennedy on the Armed Services Committee and to witness firsthand the traits so well known to Members of the Senate: the tireless preparation, the intimate knowledge of the legislative process, the relentless focus on justice and equality. Today our citizens are safer, our military more capable, our troops better equipped because of his service. Senator Kennedy approached his work with diligence and dedication. But he also knew that work goes more smoothly when it is accomplished with friendship and good humor. It was possible to disagree with Ted Kennedy but never to dislike him. His sense of humor was contagious, and his concern for those around him, from fellow Senators to staff, to the many often unheralded people who make the Senate function, ensured that he was loved as well as respected throughout this body. That love extends across lines of party and ideology, in part because of that good humor and genuine concern for others for which he is so rightly known. But it was not just these qualities that endeared Ted Kennedy to figures of all political persuasions. It was the seriousness and good faith with which he approached ideas that differed from his own. In 1983, this liberal Catholic from Massachusetts traveled to the conservative Liberty Baptist College in Virginia where he told the students: The more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side. Ted Kennedy lived out that sentiment every day. We salute his ability to work across party lines to achieve consensus, to work on a piece of legislation until doubters became enthusiastic supporters. He excelled in transforming nays to yeas. Senator Kennedy was a master of our own specialized world, and his legislative legacy stands with those of the giants of this Chamber. He tackled what some see as the great game of politics with gusto. But Ted Kennedy's life's work was not a game. Politics was not a contest staged for its own sake or in pursuit of power or prestige. Ted Kennedy was a master not of the politics of the moment but of the politics of meaning. Ted Kennedy's task was to touch lives. He touched the family whose children have health insurance because of the Children's Health Insurance Program he helped establish; the child who has a better chance at an education because of his work on the No Child Left Behind law. More Americans can fully participate in our democracy because of the civil rights and voting rights legislation he pushed forward. We saw Ted Kennedy's passion for justice, tolerance, and understanding again recently when we were working on the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention legislation. I quoted him during that debate on that legislation when the Defense authorization bill was on the floor, and I quote him again now. He said: We want to be able to have a value system that is Worthy for our brave men and women to defend. They are fighting overseas for our values. One of the values is, we should not, in this country, in this democracy, permit the kind of hatred and bigotry that has stained the history of this Nation over a considerable period of time. The children of our men and women in uniform have some of the best childcare available, thanks to the National Military Child Care Act Ted Kennedy championed in 1989. He was actively involved more recently following the outrages at Walter Reed Army Medical Center when we passed the wounded warrior legislation in 2008. The lesson of Ted Kennedy's life and career is that politics at its best is not a game to be refereed by TV pundits. It is not a contest of poll numbers or a scorecard of grievances to nurse and favors to return. Senator Kennedy struck many deals. He brokered many compromises. He won many votes. But the true majesty of his career is not to be found in this Chamber, though his work was done here. His lesson for us is that democracy is best understood in the homes and lives of its citizens. It is in the homes of families less burdened by want. It is in the minds of children freed by education. It is in the relief of parents who no longer fear for a child in need of medical care. It is in the souls of Americans who find inspiration in his triumph over tragedy and over his own shortcomings. It is in the hearts of the colleagues he leaves behind who will be inspired to rededicate ourselves to a politics that recognizes our common humanity and seeks common ground in the pursuit of justice. My wife Barbara and I will always keep in our hearts Vicki, the love of Ted's life, and we will always remember Ted's love affair with the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 1023, the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, and I will vote for the bill on final passage. At a time when we are facing a severe economic downturn and the worst recession in a generation we need to look for creative ways to create jobs and generate revenue that can provide benefits across our urban areas, cities, towns, and rural countryside. It is therefore timely that the Senate is considering a bill aimed at promoting travel and tourism in the United States. Tourism is a multibillion-dollar industry, and promoting travel to the United States will help stimulate our economy. The people in my home State of Michigan understand the important economic contributions of tourism. In fact, tourism is one of the three largest industries in Michigan along with manufacturing and agriculture. According to the U.S. Travel Association, in 2007 the travel industry supported 148,700 jobs with a payroll of $3.5 billion in Michigan. Nationally the Senate Travel Promotion Act is expected to create 40,000 new jobs in the first year. Tourism is a successful industry in Michigan because we have so much to offer visitors. In 1831, the great chronicler of early America and one of our Nation's first tourists, Alexis de Tocqueville, explored the Great Lakes. When he saw Lake Huron, he described it as ``Not grand in poetry only; it's the most extraordinary spectacle that I have seen in my life.'' Indeed, Michigan has the world's longest freshwater coastline. Michigan has beautiful beaches and cherry orchards, maritime museums and shipwreck-diving preserves. We even have some of the world's highest freshwater sand dunes and the only national fresh water marine sanctuary, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary at Alpena. There are over 11,000 inland lakes in Michigan, and we have the second highest number of recreational boats. Michigan also offers plentiful wilderness experiences at national parks and trails: Isle Royale National Park, Keweenaw National Historic Park, Sleeping Bear Dunes and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and the North Country Scenic Trail. Our State has nearly 4 million acres of State forest land, 2.7 million acres of national forest land and some 230 campgrounds. And Michigan has thousands of miles of hiking, biking, cross-country skiing and snowmobiling trails. With so many inviting tourist destinations in Michigan it is no wonder Michigan stands to benefit from the increased travel that will result from the enactment of the Travel Promotion Act. This bipartisan legislation aims to reverse the decline in overseas visitors to the United States since 9/11 by establishing a nationally coordinated public-private partnership, similar to what exists in many other countries, to increase international travelers to the United States. At no cost to the taxpayer the legislation would establish the Corporation for Travel Promotion, an independent, nonprofit corporation governed by an 11-member board of directors appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. It also would create an Office of Travel Promotion in the Department of Commerce to develop programs to increase the number of international visitors in the United States. It is paid for by a public-private matching program, the Travel Promotion Fund. Federal contributions will be financed by a required $10 fee paid by foreign travelers from visa waiver counties and collected via the electronic system for travel authorization. As the tourism season ramps up in Michigan, we must do everything we can to take advantage of our State's natural beauty and recreation opportunities to grow this critical sector of our economy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the National Drug Facts Chat Day was designed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institute of Health, NIDA, to provide the opportunity for school-aged youth and teachers in classrooms across the U.S. to ask questions of the Nation's leading experts in the field of drug abuse and addiction. One of the many activities on this occasion involves students and teachers interacting with professionals, including exchanging questions with them on the issues of illicit drug use, tobacco use, and prescription drug abuse, the latter of which has become a significant problem among our Nation's teens. NIDA hopes that ``the anonymous nature of the Internet will encourage youths to ask what is truly on their minds. Now in its third year, there are expected to be thousands of questions from every region of the country received and answered, yielding an enlightening glimpse into students' misconceptions about drug use. Students and teachers hunger for straightforward, scientific information on drug abuse and addiction. Drug Facts Chat Day, recognized on November 10, 2009, will provide them with timely, straightforward facts. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting recognition of this innovative and worthwhile program by adopting this resolution. I am very pleased that Representative Patrick Kennedy is simultaneously introducing a companion resolution in the House. As we are all aware, Representative Kennedy has been a passionate leader in increasing the understanding of the science of drug abuse and addiction among school-aged youth.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a companion bill to Representative Stupak's bill, which is also being introduced today, that would modify a patent issued to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society for the conveyance of a parcel of land at Whitefish Point, Michigan at the U.S. Coast Guard Whitefish Point Light Station. The land patent was originally issued ten years ago for the interpretation and preservation of maritime history. In accordance with the land patent, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society established and has operated a museum that brings to life the strength and fury of the Great Lakes and the bravery of the U.S. Life Saving Service who rescued thousands of people from Great Lakes shipwrecks. This legislation modifies the land patent such that development of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities or infrastructure would be implemented in accordance with the 2002 Human Use/Natural Resource Plan instead of the 1992 Whitefish Point Comprehensive Plan. The 2002 plan was developed pursuant to a court-ordered settlement agreement regarding the 1992 plan. The modification of the land patent is intended to further the purposes of the original patent, which is for preservation and interpretation of maritime history, while maintaining the conservation of natural habitat and wildlife areas, since Whitefish Point is an important birding area as well. This bill would ensure that the vibrant stories of the Great Lakes can be preserved and interpreted for future generations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a companion bill to Representative Stupak's bill, which is also being introduced today, that would modify a patent issued to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society for the conveyance of a parcel of land at Whitefish Point, Michigan at the U.S. Coast Guard Whitefish Point Light Station. The land patent was originally issued ten years ago for the interpretation and preservation of maritime history. In accordance with the land patent, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society established and has operated a museum that brings to life the strength and fury of the Great Lakes and the bravery of the U.S. Life Saving Service who rescued thousands of people from Great Lakes shipwrecks. This legislation modifies the land patent such that development of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities or infrastructure would be implemented in accordance with the 2002 Human Use/Natural Resource Plan instead of the 1992 Whitefish Point Comprehensive Plan. The 2002 plan was developed pursuant to a court-ordered settlement agreement regarding the 1992 plan. The modification of the land patent is intended to further the purposes of the original patent, which is for preservation and interpretation of maritime history, while maintaining the conservation of natural habitat and wildlife areas, since Whitefish Point is an important birding area as well. This bill would ensure that the vibrant stories of the Great Lakes can be preserved and interpreted for future generations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, once again, the Senate is being called upon to do its constitutional duty to consider a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Positions on the Supreme Court are hugely significant given their lifetime tenures and the impact of the Court's decisions on the lives of Americans. Our votes on Supreme Court nominees are among the most significant that we cast. I commend Chairman Leahy for the extraordinarily thorough and fair hearings the Judiciary Committee held on this nomination. It has given us a very extensive record upon which we can base our judgment. I have reviewed the nominee's qualifications, temperament, and background to determine if she is likely to bring to the Court an ideology that distorts her legal judgment or brings into question her openmindedness. I believe it is clear that Judge Sotomayor satisfies the essential requirements of openmindedness and judicial temperament, and her decisions as a judge fall well within the mainstream of our jurisprudence. Judge Sotomayor's judicial career has received bipartisan support. She was nominated first to the district court in the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. The Senate confirmed her nomination. President Clinton nominated Judge Sotomayor to be a circuit court judge, and the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed her nomination to that position. The American Bar Association Standing Committee evaluated Judge Sotomayor and interviewed more than 500 judges, lawyers, law professors, and community representatives from across the United States. They analyzed Judge Sotomayor's opinions, speeches, and other writings. They read reports of Reading Groups comprised of recognized experts in the substantive areas of the law that they reviewed, and they conducted an in-depth personal interview of the nominee. In the words of the committee: The Standing Committee's investigation of a nominee for the United States Supreme Court is based upon the premise that the nominee must possess exceptional professional qualifications. The significance, range, and complexity and nation-wide impact of issues that such a nominee will confront on the Court demands no less. After that extensive investigation, the American Bar Association gave Judge Sotomayor their highest rating unanimously, rating her ``well qualified.'' Some colleagues have expressed concern over the differences in language and ideas they thought they observed in Judge Sotomayor while sitting as a judge in the courtroom and as a citizen outside the courtroom. For example, one colleague put it this way during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing: I want to ask your assistance this morning to try to help us reconcile two pictures that I think have emerged during the course of this hearing. One is, of course, as Senator Schumer and others have talked about, your lengthy tenure on the Federal bench as a trial judge and court of appeals judge. And then there's the other picture that has emerged that--from your speeches and your other writings. Our colleague went on to say the following: I actually agree that your judicial record strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of judicial decision-making by district court judges and by court of appeals judges on the Federal bench. And he said in conclusion then: I guess part of what we need to do is to reconcile those-- Referring to the two different pictures he had. Let's assume for a moment there is a difference between Judge Sotomayor's rulings in the courtroom and those personal views she expressed outside of the courtroom. If so, aren't we looking for people who can apply the law on the bench, even if he or she has a different personal opinion? At the end of the day, we want our judges to leave their personal views outside of the courtroom. That is the essence of an impartial judiciary. In other words, Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated the very trait that she is accused by some of lacking: the ability to leave her personal opinions at the courthouse door. The Congressional Research Service has analyzed Judge Sotomayor's record and has concluded the following: Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e, the upholding of past judicial precedents). Other characteristics appear to include what many would describe as a careful application of particular facts at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role. Well, that is the opposite of an activist judge imposing her views despite the law. We all have personal views and sympathies. Some judges, regrettably, can't lay those aside when making their judicial calls. Judge Sotomayor has proven in her judicial career that she can, while faithfully applying the principles of the U.S. Constitution. So today, once again, the U.S. Senate is being called upon to do its constitutional duty and consider a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Positions on the Supreme Court are hugely significant given their lifetime tenures and the impact of the Court's decisions on the lives of Americans. Our votes on Supreme Court nominees are among the most significant that we cast. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution simply provides that: ``[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court . . . Without specific constitutional guidance, each senator must determine what qualities he or she thinks a Supreme Court Justice should have, and what scope of inquiry is necessary to determine if the prospective nominee has these qualities. This will be the twelfth Supreme Court nomination on which I will have voted. Each time, I have reviewed the nominee's qualifications, temperament and background to determine if the nominee is likely to bring to the court an ideology that distorts his or her legal judgment or brings into question his or her open-mindedness. I believe that Judge Sotomayor satisfies the essential requirements of open-mindedness and judicial temperament and her decisions as a judge fell well within the mainstream of our jurisprudence. Judge Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She continued to excel at Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a corecipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. In her 30-year legal career, Judge Sotomayor has been a Federal circuit and trial court judge, a civil commercial litigator in private practice, and a State prosecutor. She served as an assistant district attorney in the New York County District Attorney's Office and later worked in private practice. Judge Sotomayor's judicial career has received bipartisan support. During the 102nd Congress, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge Sotomayor to be a district judge on the Southern District of New York. On August 11, 1992, the Senate confirmed her nomination. During the 105th Congress, President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Sotomayor to be a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On October 2, 1998, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 67-29. On May 26, 2009, President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the seat left vacant by the departure of Justice David Souter. Recently, the American Bar Association Standing Committee evaluated Judge Sotomayor and interviewed more than 500 judges, lawyers, law professors and community representatives from across the United States; they analyzed Judge Sotomayor's opinions, speeches and other writings; read reports of reading groups comprised of recognized experts in the substantive areas of the law that they reviewed; and conducted an in-depth personal interview of the nominee. In the words of the committee: The Standing Committee's investigation of a nominee for the United States Supreme Court is based upon the premise that the nominee must possess exceptional professional qualifications. The significance, range, complexity and nation-wide impact of issues that such a nominee will confront on the Court demands no less. After that extensive investigation, the American Bar Association gave Judge Sotomayor their highest rating, unanimously rating her ``well qualified.'' Some colleagues have expressed concern over the differences in language and ideas they observed in Judge Sotomayor while sitting as a judge in the courtroom, and as a citizen outside of the courtroom. For example, one colleague put it this way during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, I want to ask your assistance this morning to try to help us reconcile two pictures that I think have emerged during the course of this hearing. One is, of course, as Senator Schumer and others have talked about, your lengthy tenure on the federal bench as a trial judge and court of appeals judge. And then there's the other picture that has emerged that-- from your speeches and your other writings. He further stated, You know, I actually agree that your judicial record strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of--of judicial decision making by district court judges and by court of appeals judges on the federal bench. And while I think what is creating this cognitive dissonance for many of us and for many of my constituents who I've been hearing from is that you appear to be a different person almost in your speeches and in some of the comments that you've made. So I guess part of what we need to do is to try to reconcile those. Assume there is a difference between Judge Sotomayor's rulings in the courtroom, and those personal views she expressed outside of the courtroom. If so, aren't we looking for people who can apply the law on the bench, even if he or she has a different personal opinion? At the end of the day, we want our judges to leave their personal views outside of the courtroom. That is the essence of an impartial judiciary. Senator Graham pointed that out when he said, Her speeches, [while troubling], have to be looked at in terms of her record. When we look at this 17-year record we will find someone who has not carried out that speech. In other words, Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated the trait she is accused by some of lacking: the ability to leave her personal opinions at the courthouse door. She has an extensive judicial record and we have had the opportunity to review that record. The Congressional Research Service analyzed Judge Sotomayor's record and concluded: Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents). Other characteristics appear to include what many would describe as a careful application of particular facts at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role. That is the opposite of an activist jurist imposing her views despite the law. During her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor was asked about the role of the courts numerous times. Her response makes clear that she adheres to the responsibilities of a judge: . . . look at my decisions for 17 years and note that, in every one of them, I have done what I say that I so firmly believe in. I prove my fidelity to the law, the fact that I do not permit personal views, sympathies or prejudices to influence the outcome of cases, rejecting the challenges of numerous plaintiffs with undisputably sympathetic claims, but ruling the way I have on the basis of law rejecting those claims. . . . We all have personal views and sympathies. Some judges regrettably can't lay those aside. Judge Sotomayor has proven in her judicial career that she can, while faithfully applying the principles of the U.S. Constitution. For these reasons, I will vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters received by the Judiciary Committee from the AFL-CIO and from AFSCME be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am not sure who is controlling time, but I wish to speak on the bill and on the amendment at the same time. Is there a time limit on the bill?

Mr. LEVIN. I am asking a parliamentary inquiry: Is there a time limit on the bill?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I wish to speak on the bill. I would ask, who is controlling time in opposition to the amendment? I wish to speak on the bill. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining in opposition to the Kyl amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use that time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we will soon vote on whether to extend the Cash for Clunkers Program. Rarely has this body passed legislation that has so clearly and quickly met our goals than when it approved the first installment of money for this program earlier this summer. The program offers rebates of $3,500 to $4,500 to consumers who trade in old inefficient vehicles for new cars and trucks with higher mileage. Thousands of consumers who hope to take advantage now wonder whether they will have the opportunity. It is important to understand the context in which we originally approved this program. Amid the most severe downturn since the Great Depression, auto sales everywhere plummeted--in the United States and around the globe, foreign manufacturers and U.S.-based companies alike. In the U.S. market, month after month automakers have reported sales that have fallen 40 percent or more from a year ago. This unprecedented decline has harmed not only the hard-working autoworkers in my home State and other States, but auto suppliers, auto dealers, and small businesses in every community in this Nation. Because the auto industry represents such a large share of this Nation's overall economic activity, as long as this sales decline continues, it will weigh down our economy, frustrating attempts to lift us out of recession. In establishing this program, we did not establish a course. We followed a path that had already been laid out by other nations. In Germany, France, Japan, and other nations, governments recognized the danger to their own auto industries in this time of economic crisis and they acted. Germany's Government established its own version of cash for clunkers, and in June car sales were up 40 percent over the same period a year ago. Other nations saw similar impressive increases. After just a few days, our efforts have borne impressive results. This week Ford reported its sales increased in July from a year ago, the first year-over-year increase reported this year by any automaker. Other carmakers, foreign and domestic, saw smaller declines than in previous months. The impact has been so striking that one private economist has raised his estimate for economic growth in the third quarter of this year by more than 50 percent based solely on the success of cash for clunkers. This program accomplished what it was intended to accomplish. In just a few days, a quarter of a million Americans traded in their old car for a new model using the credits available from this program. That is a quarter of a million American families who have more fuel-efficient transportation, a quarter of a million transactions that will pump new money into local economies, and an incalculable boost to this Nation's struggling auto industry. The program has made significant improvements in the fuel efficiency of our Nation's vehicle fleet. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, consumers using this program are buying new vehicles with an average 63 percent improvement in fuel economy over their trade-ins. More than four out of every five vehicles traded in are trucks; nearly three out of five new vehicles are cars. The average mileage improvement of 9.6 miles per gallon is more than double the program's minimum and far greater than expected. In short, cash for clunkers has exceeded earlier projections in its ability to get older cars off the road and their damaging emissions out of our skies. Seldom have we had an opportunity to do more for our environment than we do today. Reinforcing and extending this program will get replaced hundreds of thousands more of these environmental clunkers with highly efficient new vehicles. Some Members have proposed changes to the program by amendments. Some amendments are pending, or will be introduced, that are not related to this program. These may be well intended amendments, but it is vitally important to keep in mind the need for immediate action. The House of Representatives has sent us a bill that will keep the program running. Any amendments--any amendments--that the Senate approves will send the legislation back to the House of Representatives where action will be delayed until the House reconvenes in September. So any amendment that is adopted here is the death knell for this program. It would have to end immediately if an amendment is adopted because of the uncertainty over whether funds remain and to what extent. This program is designed to be a one-time stimulus, not a stop-and-start deal, which would make it more complex and confusing. This situation is not new. We had a similar situation just a week or so ago. When the Senate passed a bill to restore funding to the highway trust fund, an amendment pending to that bill would have prevented the Federal Government from cutting $8.7 billion in transportation funding from several States, including my home State of Michigan. Normally, it would have been a simple decision to vote for that amendment to avoid those cuts. Michigan is in desperate need, and that amendment would seemingly protect hundreds of millions of dollars for my State. Yet I voted against the amendment. I did so because of the time-sensitive nature of the underlying bill. And many others in this body voted against an amendment for that same reason. The highway trust fund was on the verge of running out of money, and the bill that we were voting on restored funding to keep it solvent through September. With the House of Representatives about to adjourn a week or so ago, any Senate amendment to that bill would have required that it be sent back to the House of Representatives, likely killing the bill. I, and many others here, decided not to risk letting the highway trust fund run out of funds. So what did we do? We voted for the bill, but we voted against an amendment, even though that amendment would have helped our States. What we did instead is we pledged to seek passage of that amendment at a later date to a different legislative vehicle. I opposed every amendment to that bill, as did a majority of our colleagues. That is the situation we are in now. If we want this program to continue, we have but one choice. We have to vote for it, but we also must vote against all of the amendments that are pending to it, even though those amendments may be attractive standing on their own and in ordinary circumstances. It is going to be difficult for some to vote against these amendments. I understand that. But the issue is going to be, do you want the Cash for Clunkers Program to continue? If any amendment passes, it is the end of that program. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. First, let my thank my friend from Oklahoma for raising some of these questions which are entitled to be debated. We are not alone in having a Cash for Clunkers Program. Other countries, including Germany, have had these programs. So we are not designing something from scratch. All auto-producing countries that I know of in the world are fighting to have an auto industry come out at the end of this recession. Unless we take action in a number of ways, that is not going to happen. So the Cash for Clunkers Program is based on a similar type of program in other countries, including Germany, where it has been very successful. It is not my intent--to answer the other part of his question--it is surely not my intent that this program continue beyond this extension. No one can give an assurance as to what is going to happen in the future with this body or other Members of this body or, indeed, with myself. But it is not my intent that this be a continued program beyond this extension. The reason it was so essential that we have this extension is it was such a successful program. It sold out so quickly, we think our success actually overwhelmed us. I don't believe, as the Senator from Oklahoma does, that people were buying forward. I think maybe the opposite happened. By the way, I think people may have been waiting until there was this kind of incentive because people are in desperate economic shape. Perhaps some of the people who knew there was going to be such a program may have held back in buying a vehicle. But also the other prong of this program, besides the economic boost it gives to the economy overall, is the environmental part. That is the part which the Senator's amendment does not address. It is intended to get clunkers off the road, not just to get an economic stimulus into the auto area for sales of vehicles that benefit not just producers but car dealers and suppliers, but there is also a huge environmental benefit which has not only proven itself, but done much better than anybody could have expected. That is ignored by the Senator's amendment, because keeping those cars on the road, as the Senator would do, denies the environmental benefit of the Cash for Clunkers Program. That is another reason I would oppose the Senator's amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. I do not know the number.

Mr. LEVIN. In response to the Senator, I think that same point is true with the purchase of any new car.