Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Who has the burden of proof in intentional discrimination cases as to whether and when an act of discrimination occurred?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation is important to ensure that Americans from all walks of life have a realistic opportunity for recourse if they are victims of pay discrimination. We are considering this bill because of the Supreme Court's interpretation, in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court's 5 to 4 ruling makes it almost impossible for many victims of pay discrimination to find an adequate legal remedy under the Civil Rights Act. The legislation we are considering today will correct that. The Civil Rights Act established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, to enforce title VII. The EEOC is empowered to protect against employment discrimination based on sex, race, national origin, religion and disability by receiving complaints of discrimination, investigating discrimination, conducting mediations to settle complaints and filing law suits on behalf of employees. Despite the efforts of the EEOC, the United States still suffers from significant pay iniquities. Numerous studies using census data and controlling for work patterns and socioeconomic factors found that half or more of the wage gap between males and females is due to gender alone, demonstrating that discrimination based on gender is all too common in American work places. Over the past decade, the EEOC has averaged more than 24,400 complaints of sex-based discrimination each year. One of those complaints was filed in 1998 by a woman named Lilly Ledbetter. She alleged that she was the victim of a sex-based pay disparity during her nearly 20-year career at Goodyear. Ledbetter sued Goodyear, and a jury awarded her back pay and damages after finding, among other things, that Ledbetter was being paid $550 to $1550 less per month than her male counterparts who were doing the same work. For almost her entire tenure at Goodyear, Letbetter was not aware that she was being discriminated against because the pay levels of her coworkers were kept strictly confidential. In fact, she only learned that she was making less than males doing the same job as her because of an anonymous tip that she received shortly before her retirement. Congress's intent in passing the Civil Rights Act and in passing subsequent updates to the Civil Rights Act in 1991 a bill which I supported was to help remedy the sort of discrimination that Lilly Ledbetter fell victim to. Although the validity of claims of pay discrimination filed within 180 days of receiving a paycheck reflecting discriminatory policies has been recognized by countless lower courts and was explicitly accepted under EEOC guidelines and by previous EEOC administrative decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that Ledbetter's claim of discrimination was not actionable under title VII. Their opinion stated that Ledbetter's claim was not filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act against her. In ruling against Ledbetter, the majority's opinion stated that ``it is not [the Supreme Court's] prerogative to change the way in which title VII balances the interests of the aggrieved employees against the interest in encouraging the prompt processing of all charges of employment discrimination.''' The majority concluded that ``Ledbetter's policy arguments for giving special treatment to pay claims find no support in the statute'' and that the Supreme Court must apply ``the statute as written, and this means that any unlawful employment practice including those involving compensation, must be presented to the EEOC within the period prescribed in the statute.'' The dissenters rightly characterize the majority opinion as ``parsimonious.'' I believe that the majority put forth a misguided interpretation of unlawful employment practices, and in doing so incorrectly found that Lilly Ledbetter's claim did not fall within title VII of the Civil Rights Act. I also believe that the opinion of the Court required an unreasonable interpretation of Congress's intent in title VII. Their finding would make it next to impossible to file a successful claim of discriminatory pay, given the challenges in detecting such discrimination. The Supreme Court interpreted Congressional intent in a civil rights law in a way that is restrictive of peoples' civil rights and available remedies. But the issue for us to decide is not what a previous Congress intended. We are to decide what the law should be, and what is right. This legislation determines that each discriminatory paycheck will qualify as an unlawful employment practice under title VII. Equitable remedies defendants can raise, including laches, are not disturbed by this bill. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will restore the protections against discriminatory pay that Congress and the courts have previously endorsed, and provide a reasonable route through the EEOC and the court system for people like Lilly Ledbetter to have pay discrimination corrected and remedied.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, the Committee on Armed Services unanimously passed a committee resolution to express its appreciation to Margaret Tyler and to commend her for her many years of faithful and outstanding service to the men and women of the U.S. Army, to their families, and to the Senate of the United States. Margaret Tyler has worked for the Federal Government for 57 years. She has served 45 of those 57 years in the Army Liaison Office--38 of those years in the Army Senate Liaison Office. Through all those years, Mrs. Tyler has dedicated herself to helping those in need and in solving problems affecting the U.S. Army. She has always been professional, efficient, and effective in her work. Over the years, Senators and staff have learned that when they have a problem involving the Army the first step in solving the problem is calling Margaret Tyler. To many in the Senate family, she is affectionately known as the Army's Angel. The men and women of our Armed Forces deserve the best support and assistance we in Congress can give them. Day in and day out, for the past 45 years, Margaret has helped us support the men and women of the U.S. Army and their families to the best of her ability. Thousands of soldiers and their families have been touched by her dedicated, professional, and personal care. On behalf of all the members of the Committee on Armed Services, I ask unanimous consent that our committee's resolution commending Margaret Tyler on her service to the men and women of the U.S. Army, to their families, and to the Senate of the United States be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam. President, we are in a crisis unparalleled since the Great Depression. We are on a deeply troubling path, marked by credit freezes, foreclosures, rising unemployment, and declining purchasing power. And that path, in the autumn of last year, appeared to be heading toward a cliff. We were fearful of what might happen if we stood idle and allowed our economy to fall off that cliff. The initial Emergency Economic Stabilization Act proposal put forth by the White House and the Treasury Department was unacceptable. It was essentially a blank check for $700 billion to be spent however they pleased. There were no provisions for oversight, no accountability, no mechanism to ensure that the funds were well-spent. Congress did significant work to create a more acceptable proposal, including dividing the recovery funds into two pieces, the second of which could be disapproved by Congress. In the months since we passed that legislation, I have been deeply disappointed in the way the administration has handled the program. Although we required the Treasury Department to maximize assistance for homeowners and work to minimize foreclosures, no systematic foreclosure mitigation program has been adopted, let alone implemented. Although the goal of the legislation was to unfreeze credit markets, the Treasury Department did not take reasonable steps to ensure that a significant portion of the billions of dollars distributed to banks across the country were used for this purpose. Indeed, in one specific example, one bank that received over $2 billion in TARP funding has been reducing the lines of credit for Michigan businesses that have been longtime customers of the bank without a single default. I am hearing similar accounts from across Michigan and throughout the Nation. This slashing of credit by banks receiving federal funds is the opposite of what TARP was intended to do. Many may recall that the originally stated purpose of the Troubled Asset Relief Program was to focus on purchasing ``toxic'' assets from financial institutions. While Congress set significant disclosure and oversight requirements to monitor these purchases, we also provided flexibility for the Treasury Department to respond rapidly to the developing crisis. Treasury decided that the originally conceived TARP program would not suffice to save our economy from the approaching cliff, so the administration turned to capital injections. The administration does not know what this massive infusion of capital has done to mitigate the economic crisis. They established no metrics to judge whether the program is working. Recipients of funds have not been required to set benchmarks as to how the funds should be used, let alone track, report to regulators or disclose to the public what they are doing with the funds. Many of the financial institutions that have received TARP funds continue to give out annual performance bonuses, many of which are larger than most hard-working Americans earn in decades of labor. And, as we have seen in the front pages of national papers this week, there are real concerns about the long-term viability of some of the banks receiving funds, yet those funds have gone out the door without requiring any written plan from the banks as to how they will continue operations or repay the taxpayers. Even as the administration gave financial institutions carte blanche with few, if any, questions asked, they first refused to provide TARP funds to our domestic automakers and then did so only with significant oversight and restructuring requirements. The double standard here is dramatic. Because of all these shortcomings in the use and oversight of the first $350 billion of TARP funds, I would oppose the release of the second $350 billion if those funds were to be used as sloppily. Yesterday I sent a letter to National Economic Council Director- designate Dr. Larry Summers seeking further and more detailed assurances. I will ask to have that letter printed in the Record. I believe the assurances I requested are commonsense positions that are essential to a well-run, effective stabilization plan that protects taxpayers money. The assurances I requested are: No. 1, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that TARP recipients will be required by the Treasury to track and report their use of TARP funds and that this information will be made available to the Congress and the public? No. 2, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that recipients of ``exceptional assistance'' will be subject to at least the same compensation limits as have been placed on recipients of funds under the TARP's Automotive Industry Financing Program? No. 3, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that Treasury will obtain agreements from TARP recipients on benchmarks the recipient is required to meet so as to advance the purposes of TARP? No. 4, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that it will ensure that banks use a significant portion of TARP funds to extend credit? No. 5, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that a significant portion of the remaining TARP funds will be used to carry out a comprehensive plan to prevent and mitigate foreclosures on residential mortgages? No. 6, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that banks which receive ``exceptional assistance'' will be required to adopt a systematic residential mortgage mitigation program? No. 7, does the incoming Obama administration assure Congress that recipients of assistance under TARP and other Federal programs will be required to develop and submit a written financial viability plan just as was required of recipients of funds under the Automotive Industry Financing Program? Just a couple of hours ago, we received a response from Dr. Summers addressed to Senator Reid. The letter goes a long way to providing positive answers to most of my questions. To summarize a few of the points: No. 1, TARP recipients will have to track and report their lending patterns and report this information to the public. No. 2, healthy banks without major capital shortfalls will have to increase lending above baseline levels. No. 3, they pledge to commit $50 to $100 billion of the TARP funds to address the foreclosure crisis, and banks receiving TARP support will be required to implement mortgage foreclosure mitigation programs. I am disappointed that the letter did not provide assurances that banks and other financial institutions receiving TARP funds will be subject to the same rigorous standards with respect to executive compensation and the submission of viability plans that Congress and the Bush administration demanded of the auto companies. I have responded to Dr. Summers letting him know I look forward to hearing his response to the balance of my suggestions. I will ask to have that letter printed in the Record. On a related matter, in December, the Bush administration committed to provide $13.4 billion in funds from the TARP to facilitate the restructuring of our American auto manufacturers and said that an additional $4 billion would be available in February. Of necessity, this additional $4 billion must come from the second $350 billion, and we have been assured that will happen. In return for this much-needed bridge financing, the domestic auto manufacturers agreed in December to terms and conditions that went way beyond anything required of other recipients of TARP funding. There was broad support for these loans for the domestic auto industry because there was broad recognition that this industry is the foundation of our Nation's manufacturing sector and industrial base and a recognition that its failure was simply unacceptable. We must complete the job started in December and ensure that the additional funding necessary for the financial health of this critical U.S. industry is provided in a timely manner. Support from the Federal Government is essential if the energy efficient green vehicles of the future will be produced by American companies and American workers. Other auto-producing countries are acting to assure the survival of their industries. So must we. Perhaps because of the current administration's poor record of accomplishment with the first $350 billion and the lack of accountability with which the distribution of those funds has been carried out, our economic position today is not discernibly stronger than it was 3 months ago. We are threatened by further bank failures, creditworthy consumers and businesses are having trouble accessing credit, and it appears that if we do not act our economy may decline even further. As was the case 3 months ago, it would be irresponsible to stand by and do nothing as our economy heads toward a cliff. It would be negligent to tie the hands of the incoming administration because of the outgoing administration's deficiencies. I am convinced by what we know of continuing bank losses and the hurting credit markets that it would be irresponsible to refuse the President this weapon for economic recovery. Bringing about economic stabilization and restoring a healthy economy will not be an easy task. We are contracting from an unprecedented and irresponsible boom in lending over the past years, which led financial institutions to make loans to borrowers who could not repay them. Unfortunately, in the aftermath, the pendulum is swinging the other way and many banks are fearful of making any loans at all, even to creditworthy borrowers. It is my hope that with more TARP funds available, reporting requirements, and established goals, banks will resume making responsible loans. Part of this will require that Treasury focus not just on the banks that many deem ``too big to fail'' but also on community and independent banks that are the financial backbone of many small towns through their support of local businesses and families. Coupled with the stimulus package Congress will consider in the next month and then a much needed financial regulatory overhaul in the spring, we can begin to turn away from the deregulatory disaster of recent years and return to a healthy economy with cops on the beat to help restore confidence in our financial system and prevent another financial disaster like the one we find ourselves in now. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letters to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, passage of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 would wrap up one of the major pieces of unfinished business from last year. The majority leader promised he would take up this legislation early in 2009, and indeed he has. The omnibus public land bill includes four provisions that will directly benefit Michigan by preserving precious natural resources and improving our parks and trails. The lands bill includes legislation I authored that would authorize the Federal Government to purchase land from willing sellers for the North Country National Scenic Trail. The North Country Trail will be the Nation's longest hiking trail, traversing seven States including Michigan, which has the longest trail segment of 1,150 miles. The Federal Government has land acquisition authority for the majority of its national scenic and historic trails, but for no good reason this authority has not been available for the North Country Trail. Willing sellers should have the right to sell portions of their land, or grant easements for trail users across their land, should they choose to do so, and if it is in the public interest. This provision will allow for the eventual completion of the North Country Trail, giving more users the opportunity to enjoy scenic hiking in Michigan as well as the six other States along the planned route. For nearly 10 years, I have been working on this willing seller authority, and I am delighted that Congress has finally approved this important legislation. The omnibus lands bill also includes legislation I sponsored last Congress to improve the Keweenaw National Historical Park, located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. By removing overly restrictive property acquisition requirements, changing unfair matching requirements for Federal funds, and increasing the authorized level of funds to be appropriated for the park, we can improve the visitors' experience. Established in 1992, this unique park is a partnership with nearly 20 independently operated heritage sites, and preserves and interprets the incredible story of the copper rush in Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula during the Industrial Revolution. I am pleased that this legislation is finally being acted upon so the park can more fully carry out its statutory mission to preserve and bring to life the vibrant history of Michigan's ``copper country''--an essential part of the Nation's history of industrial and technological development, immigration, labor relations, and natural resources, and a key component to the economic revitalization of this area. The omnibus lands bill also provides important protections for 12,000 acres within the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula along the south shore of majestic Lake Superior. I introduced this wilderness bill during the last Congress, and I am pleased that one of the first actions the Senate has taken this year is to pass this bill, which would protect the Beaver Basin for future generations, while ensuring continued public enjoyment of the land. The Beaver Basin wilderness comprises about 12,000 acres, or 16 percent, of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, and was proposed after 5 years of careful planning and extensive public consultation. The wilderness designation is responsive to many of the concerns expressed by citizens and ensures its continued recreational use. The access road to the lakes and campground are not included in the wilderness designation, so vehicles would still have access to this popular recreation area. Also, all motor boats would still be able to access the miles of the Lake Superior shoreline, as the wilderness area does not include the Lake Superior surface water. In addition, boats using electric motors would still be allowed on Little Beaver and Beaver Lakes within the wilderness area. The Beaver Basin area has been managed as a backcountry and wilderness area since 1981, and this wilderness designation will ensure that the valuable habitat and pristine natural features of the region remain the treasure they are today. Finally, the omnibus lands bill includes legislation that I sponsored in the Senate last year as a companion bill to Representative Dingell's legislation in the House of Representatives, which would designate land in Monroe and Wayne County, MI, related to the battles of the River Raisin fought during the War of 1812 as a unit of the National Park System. While there are currently eight War of 1812 battlefield sites that are in the National Park System, none of these sites are located in areas that were once considered the ``Northwest,'' a key strategic front in the War of 1812. The River Raisin battlefield sites were the place of horrific events; yet these events became a turning point that spurred our troops to future victories, protected our lands, and culminated in a celebration of America's ``Second War of Independence.'' With the approaching 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, I am pleased that the Senate has this legislation before it, and I look forward to the bill becoming law in time for this national celebration.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Nation celebrates a new beginning by welcoming a new administration to town next week, my office will be saying goodbye to a longtime trusted adviser and friend. Today, I pay tribute to my legislative director, Rich Arenberg, who will retire from Congress after 34 years to take a teaching position at Brown University. In the nearly 15 years that Rich has led the legislative team in my office, he has provided invaluable guidance on innumerable issues that have arisen. No doubt, he has a detailed record--likely in chart form-- of the legislative back-and-forth behind each bill, if not each vote, we have confronted together. And when Rich announced his retirement to the legislative staff last month, the number of long faces around the table spoke volumes about his skills. Rich has an encyclopedic knowledge of Senate history, procedure, and protocol. He has been a mentor to countless Hill staffers, as well as a thoughtful, reasonable, skilled adviser to the Members he has served. He is a gifted storyteller who enlightens and entertains my office with anecdotes of his decades on the Hill. And above all, he is an incredibly decent human being, devoted to his work, loyal to the people around him, with a passion for life. Rich takes a distinct interest not only in understanding the policy implications of the bills that came before the Senate but also in appreciating the subtleties of each vote the significance of procedural votes and the connotations of each Senator's stance. Rich revels in the obscure though sometimes critical anomaly: for example, he often tracked which Senators reversed their positions between or during votes. With his competence, focus, and passion, Rich has endeared himself to those who had the pleasure of working with or near him. Beyond his personal qualities, he has distinguished himself with a remarkable record of legislative contributions. Rich and I arrived in the Senate at the same time following the election of 1978. As a staffer for Senator Paul Tsongas, whom he had previously worked for in the House of Representatives, Rich was initiated in the Senate in a pursuit that also dominated my first year: securing loan guarantees for Chrysler that helped save the company and had an enormous positive impact on the vibrancy of our domestic auto industry. He contributed significantly to the Alaska Lands Act, enacted in 1980, which remains of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation of the last several decades. Beginning in 1984, he served as chief of staff to Senator George Mitchell. His work to investigate the Iran-Contra affair could fill a book--and, in fact, Rich helped Senator William Cohen and then-Majority Leader Mitchell write ``Men of Zeal,'' a book detailing the 1987 Iran- Contra hearings in which Rich played a critical role. As a special assistant for national security affairs for Senator Mitchell in the early 1990s, Rich handled a variety of intelligence matters, and his work required extensive travel around the world. Since joining my staff in 1994, Rich has contributed to legislation protecting the Great Lakes, improving treatment for drug abuse, and preserving American jobs. Rich has been on the front lines of legislative efforts that have sometimes spanned years. He has been at my side at the crack of dawn each Wednesday morning for weekly radio interviews, at the ready to answer questions. His performance reflects a deep respect for the Senate and an understanding that the root of senatorial accomplishment is cooperation and collaboration. He has worked long hours with a zeal for legislative maneuvering matched only by his passion for the Red Sox and exceeded only by his love for his family. I was honored that he and his wonderful wife Linda chose my Capitol hideaway as the site to celebrate their wedding, a joyful day that included a spirited procession through the Senate building and Capitol subway. And when his Red Sox won the World Series or when his beloved cocker spaniel had a new litter of puppies or when his sons or daughter were in the midst of an adventure, there was a glint in his eye and a smile would break across his face. But there is no doubt that Rich's engaging stories, insightful observations, and flair for humor will be a treasure trove for the students who are fortunate enough to be in his classroom. They will learn the ins and outs of the Senate from the best. They'll learn about Rich's ``tilted deck'' theory, which predicts that the Senate will take until the eve of adjournment or weekend recess to act, and then, if it fails to do so, will inevitably take until the eve of the next deadline to try again. And I am willing to predict that after a semester with Rich, his students will know well that a gorilla in an idiom should always weigh 800 pounds and that they will pay close attention to the President's appraisal of the State of our Union. For one more glimpse of Rich's great accrued wisdom, look at his office. Inside Rich's office, he has posted a quote from Confucious. It reads: ``When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it--this is knowledge.'' That is the brand of excellence that Rich brought to all his work in the Senate, and that approach is why he has been such a trusted and important adviser to me, as well as to other Senators. And when he does not know a thing, he figures it out. Rich, thank you for your work on behalf of the people of the State of Michigan, mastering their issues, applying your legislative skills to their benefit. Thank you for your service to the Nation in the Senate, advancing the spirit of thoughtful bipartisanship that makes this body work. Thank you helping me navigate the murky waters of Senate procedure and precedent for all these years. And thank you for your friendship and for being--day-in and day-out-- the kind of staff member that a Senator can be proud of.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand I now will be proceeding as though in morning business for 5 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, President-elect Obama gave a powerful and visionary speech last Thursday on the Federal Government's role in creating short-term jobs and in making long-term investments for future jobs. To be successful, that short- and long-term investment program must include programs to revitalize the American manufacturing sector. Many of us have urged the implementation of a national manufacturing policy for years without success during the 8 Bush years--years of neglect of this vital sector of our economy that saw our Nation lose 3.7 million manufacturing jobs. An American Manufacturing Initiative requires a true government partnership with the private sector--a partnership that recognizes that our companies are not competing with companies overseas but instead competing with countries whose governments support manufacturing. A prime example of that support is in the area of advanced technology vehicles and advanced batteries. The President-elect said last Thursday that we must spark the ``creation of a clean energy'' economy. He said further that ``we will put Americans to work in new jobs,'' including ``constructing fuel efficient cars.'' Investing in green energy technologies will provide a double benefit of job creation and reduction of CO2. Wind and solar are repeatedly cited as the prime targets for such investment, and they should be. But there is another important technology that is not mentioned that should be at the top of the list, and that is batteries. The production of future green vehicles in the United States will involve a significant number of green manufacturing jobs, and because transportation is one of the greatest sources of CO2, a major shift to these vehicles will result in a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Such a shift from our current gasoline- powered light duty fleet of cars and SUVs to electric drive vehicles such as hybrid electric, plug-in hybrids, and all-electric vehicles would cut our liquid fuel consumption by 83 percent, significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But while descriptions of economic recovery programs so far talk of tax credits for purchase of such vehicles, what is missing to date is commitment to fund grants for development and production of the batteries that will likely determine whether these vehicles are ultimately made in the U.S. Because the heart of these green cars will be their batteries. As the Nation makes a serious push toward greater use of hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and all-electric vehicles, there will be increasing demand for the advanced batteries that will power these vehicles. We must ensure that we can meet the demand for production of these batteries here in the U.S. The upcoming economic recovery package needs to devote a minimum of $1 billion to grants to support advanced battery production in the United States. The lithium ion battery is at the heart of that effort. While most of the technology was first invented in the U.S., nearly all of those batteries currently produced come from Pacific Rim countries as a result of years of financial support from their governments. One may ask why we need additional funds for grants for advanced battery development and manufacturing, when the Congress has already provided funding for loans for the retooling of facilities to produce advanced technology vehicles and has provided funding for loan guarantees for advanced energy technologies. The answer is that we need grant funding now to jump start development of a U.S. manufacturing base for advanced batteries before all of their production goes off shore. Loans and loan guarantees can be important provided they are not just authorized but funded, but they cannot match grants other countries offer. We took a step in this direction in sections 641, 132, and 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, when Congress authorized grants for advanced battery development, grants for conversion of domestic manufacturing capability to produce advanced technology vehicle components and grants for retooling of facilities to produce advanced technology vehicles. But we faltered because we failed to appropriate funds for the programs we had authorized. It is these grant programs that we must now fund to spur and assure that the production of the advanced batteries that are the heart of green cars will be here in the U.S. The country or region that controls and dominates the production of batteries will also ultimately control green vehicle production. An example of this is already occurring today in the U.S. where production of the American-made Ford Escape hybrid is limited because Toyota controls the production of batteries and, therefore, the number of batteries provided for the Ford Escape. We are at a critical juncture in the commercialization of advanced battery technology. Even as we deliberate an economic recovery bill, vehicle manufacturers are moving toward decisions on where to purchase the next generation of batteries. Battery manufacturers are at this moment assessing the battery production options in the U.S. and other countries. Hope for a robust economic recovery in the industrial sector requires us to develop advanced batteries here in the U.S. We cannot afford to lose their development and production to other countries that are willing to offer greater financial incentives than we are. If we offer loans while other countries offer grants, we could lose the battle for green vehicle production to other countries, not because they produce more efficiently or cheaply or produce better quality but because they are willing to offer attractive incentives such as grants. We have the technology and ingenuity and infrastructure to build a thriving green manufacturing sector that can create millions of jobs here in America. But it will require significant government support to match the support other countries offer. If we fail to provide major grants for advanced battery development and production, we will not only fail in an area of immediate and significant job creation. We will also end up substituting dependency on a different form of imported energy--batteries--for our current dependency on foreign oil. I cannot overstate the critical urgency of this matter and will continue to press this matter in the days ahead. I thank Senator Bingaman and others for the time and yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Missouri, be recognized for up to 5 minutes, and that I be recognized for 30 minutes in morning business.

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the bill that has been filed by the chairman of the Banking Committee would do for the U.S. domestic auto industry what governments around the world are doing: providing emergency assistance to their auto industries because their survival is jeopardized by a worldwide recession which has resulted in plunging auto sales. That global recession is not the making of the auto industries around the world, including our own domestic industry. Past mistakes of the big three are not the cause of the worldwide recession and resulting credit freeze. People who want to make large purchases, such as automobiles, are unable to get credit, and 90 percent of the people who buy automobiles buy on credit. Many people simply are afraid to make large-scale financial commitments in these scary economic times. So the U.S. domestic auto industry is not alone in needing loans to make it through the global economic calamity we are in. Look at the rest of the auto-producing world. Here are some headlines in the news recently: ``Facing a Slowdown, China's Auto Industry Presses for a Bailout From Beijing.'' Brazil. ``In Brazil, Whiplash on Assembly Lines.'' ``The Government stepped in with a $3.5 billion aid package for the auto industry by funding banks to boost the amount of credit available for car loans.'' ``European Carmakers Get $50 Billion in Aid.'' ``European governments poised to help their automakers.'' ``Automakers in other nations get more government help. Requests for aid made worldwide''--another headline. These are all headlines in papers across the country. Reuters, ``Spain to support car industry.'' ``France's stimulus plan includes carmakers.'' ``Portugal rolls out loan.'' ``Auto industry faces massive job losses without aid,'' according to the chairman of one of the largest automobile industries--not one of the big three. Now, why are nations around the world stepping in to support their auto industries? It is because of the drastic decline in sales across the industries around the world--not just domestic, not just the big three--leaving no alternative to every other auto-producing country and its government but to support its industry. Hyundai sales are down 40 percent; Toyota sales are down 34 percent; Honda, down 32 percent; Nissan, down 42 percent; Mercedes, down 38 percent. These are not the big three. These are automobile makers around the country that are in the same situation as the big three. But the difference, so far, is that other governments are stepping in. We have not yet stepped in to support our industry. In arguing against these loans for the big three, some continue to describe the domestic companies of the 1970s and 1980s when fuel efficiency was not high on the list of the big three as big three goals or achievements. Some would have us ignore dramatic gains in quality and vastly greater numbers of fuel-efficient vehicles now being offered by the big three. In the area of quality, big three autos are equal to or better than their foreign competitors. For example, the J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scores the overall quality of Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, Mercury, Pontiac, and Lincoln--these are objective, outside studies on quality for those American brands, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, Mercury, Pontiac, and Lincoln--as high or higher than Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, VW, and Volvo. J.D. Power rates the Chevrolet Malibu as the highest quality midsize sedan on the market, and both the Malibu and the Ford Fusion score better than the Honda Accord or the Toyota Camry. On the fuel efficiency side, here are some facts that hopefully colleagues will consider. Long before the credit crisis hit, GM laid the groundwork to offer 15 hybrids by 2012. Thanks to investments they have already made, GM already has 20 models that achieve 30 miles per gallon or better--twice the number of its nearest competitor. All the big three are working to ensure that at least 50 percent of their American production is capable of running on biofuels by 2012. Domestic automakers produce numerous cars that have equal or better fuel efficiency than their foreign competitors. And again, the most fuel efficient Chevy Malibu gets 33 miles per gallon on the highway, which is 2 miles better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel efficiency ratings as the most fuel efficient Toyota Corolla. In the area of productivity, Chrysler tied Toyota as the most productive automaker in North America this year, according to the Harbor Report on Manufacturing, which measures the amount of work done per employee. Eight of the ten most productive vehicle assembly plants in North America belong to Chrysler, Ford, or General Motors. Now, there are also some who want to ignore the reduction in benefits that have been taken already by UAW workers and retirees. In the collective bargaining agreements negotiated in 2005 and 2007, the UAW, along with GM, Ford, and Chrysler, achieved billions of dollars in cost savings and set the companies on the course to bring labor costs, including benefits, in line with their foreign competitors in the United States by 2012. Wages were cut and pension and health care benefits were greatly reduced as well. The UAW is taking responsibility for managing its own retiree health care benefits beginning in 2010 by setting up its own voluntary employee beneficiary association, or VEBA. The VEBA plan will transfer responsibilities for health care benefits for existing employees from companies to an independent trust. This eliminates half of the companies' liabilities for retirees' health care, with billions of dollars of savings. The memory of mistakes made decades ago lingers and remains the impression that many have of the big three despite all the facts I have just outlined. Beliefs are always hard to change. So the facts I have just shared about improved quality and more fuel efficient vehicles and alternative-energy vehicles being produced by the big three may not be readily accepted by people who have beliefs that are to the contrary. But one fact is indisputable and will hopefully influence some who are open to argument: Auto industries around the world are seeking the support of their governments through loans and other methods and are getting it. I went through that series of headlines, from Brazil to Europe, all the way to China. The Chinese automobile industry is asking for loans from the Chinese Government. No other auto-producing country that I know of in the world is failing to act to make sure its industry is alive when the deep global recession is over, and we shouldn't either. There is also a national security aspect to the American auto industry, and I wish to spend some time on this because there was testimony that was prepared for delivery to the Banking Committee when they met on this subject by the Director of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, called TARDEC. So this is the Army R&D and engineering center. It is located in Macomb County, MI. TARDEC develops, integrates, and sustains the right technology solutions for all of our manned and unmanned Department of Defense ground vehicle systems and combat support systems in order to improve force effectiveness and provide superior capabilities for the future forces of this country. The Director of TARDEC is Grace Bochenek. Because of the security importance of what I am going to relate, I am going to read from her prepared testimony, and this is going to take some time. I am going to read from her prepared testimony, though it wasn't actually delivered. It ended up that they had too many witnesses, and so she wasn't invited, but this testimony is a compelling story of the continuing relationship between the big three, the domestic auto industry, and our U.S. Army vehicle program. We all look back--some of us nostalgically--to what Detroit did during World War II. That is the past. There is a present which is critically important in terms of the security of this country. Some have pointed out the need to have a manufacturing base in order to quickly expand in the case of need, and that is a powerful argument--a national security argument for keeping our big three auto industry around the way other countries keep their auto industries around. Some other colleagues have pointed out in some detail the relationship between the suppliers of the big three and the suppliers of vehicles for the Army and how much trouble those suppliers would be in--these are Army vehicle suppliers--if the big three did not survive, and that is another powerful national security argument. But I am going to focus on what Grace Bochenek focused on, the Director of TARDEC, which is the relationships, the synergies that exist between the big three now and the Army in terms of current products and current technologies which are inserted into our vehicles and future technologies which are being developed as we speak. I am going to quote from her testimony, and this will all be quotes except where I insert my own words, which I will try to make clear. But this will be a long quote, for those who are listening to this testimony and, hopefully, reading it. The synergies between TARDEC and the U.S. automotive industry and the collective challenges we face. TARDEC's connection to the automotive industry dates back to 1947, when the Tank Automotive Components Laboratories, now known as TARDEC, was established. The level of cooperation between the Army and the auto industry was strengthened by the Secretary of the Army's charter of the National Automotive Center, NAC, in 1992 to champion the development of dual-use automotive technologies and their application to military ground vehicles. Today, the NAC remains the connective piece and continues to engage through many different mechanisms to leverage the capabilities, skills, and facilities of the automotive industry. Referring to the Department of Defense and the domestic automobile industry, she continued: For the past 70 years, we have shared common research goals, leveraged investments in technology, mutually benefitted from those technical developments, and collectively owned the responsibility for our Nation's next generation of automotive engineers and scientists. Technologies may have changed, but the importance of working together to collectively drive innovation has not. The Army's specific challenges are as follows: First, significantly increasing fuel efficiency to reduce the logistics burden on our troops. In some cases, fuel is 70 percent of the bulk tonnage that we take to war. Second, substantially increasing electric power available on the battlefield and developing the next generation of electronic warfare tools. Third, increasing soldier protection through the development and application of advanced light-weight material solutions. Fourth, utilizing sensor technology throughout our vehicle platforms to collect prognostic data allowing for overall improved reliability and reduced sustainment costs. Fifth, engaging the enemy without putting soldiers in harm's way through the fielding of unmanned systems. Another word for that is robotics. Continuing now with Grace Bochenek's prepared testimony. Often the only difference between military and commercial automotive technologies is a matter of scale both with regard to the market (quantity) and component durability (military specifications). The goals and the technologies leading to their accomplishment, however, remain very similar. Our motivations may differ, but our technological goals are shared ones. Both the Army and the automotive industry seek to achieve technical advances in the areas of power and energy, vehicle intelligence, robotics, safety, advanced lightweight materials and leading-edge manufacturing methods. Then she goes into examples in each of those areas, where there is a working together, a cooperation, a synergy between the American automobile industry and the Army vehicle program. She continues: In 1997, TARDEC began a commercially based tactical truck program focused on leveraging GM, Ford and Chrysler's commercial truck platforms to meet some of the military's light tactical vehicle requirements. Chrysler and GM provided hybrid electric vehicles that included start-stop operation and vehicle exportable power providing TARDEC with information critical to defining future requirements. A Cooperative Research & Development Agreement (CRADA) between Ford and TARDEC launched the development of a thermal management software modeling tool. This further matured under multiple Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts utilizing tri-service investment. The dual use software produced has been fully commercialized and is now sold worldwide by one of the SBIR, recipients, resulting in a new Michigan business with revenues of about $10M per year. Ford's initial investment was absolutely critical in the development of this world class product the application of which has also become the Army, Navy, and Air Force standard. This is an example of how an Automotive OEM--TARDEC partnership was able to leverage resources to create jobs and develop useful technologies. TARDEC continues to partner with automotive industry OEMs and suppliers on advanced powertrain technologies including fuel cell technologies, power and thermal management, and advanced automotive batteries all of which are necessary for the next generation of military systems. TARDEC leverages fuel cell developments primarily through the automotive supplier base with companies such as Ballard, Delphi, and United Technologies. TARDEC also has a longstanding relationship with General Motors in the demonstration and evaluation of light duty commercial fuel cell vehicles. This program has allowed TARDEC to assess multiple generations of fuel cell technologies. Batteries are critical to implementing advanced automotive powertrains. As such, there is a growing body of collaborative work between TARDEC, the automotive OEMs, and their suppliers. The cornerstone of TARDEC's efforts in this area is the development of manufacturing technologies needed to mass-produce high power and energy density Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) batteries--particularly critical for the Army's Future Combat Systems platforms. Additionally, there are many ongoing military battery technology development efforts that leverage emerging automotive battery technology providers such as Al23, AltairNano, Boston Power, GS Yuasa, Inanovation, EnerDel, EnerSys, Firefly, Kokam America, Quallion, and SAFT America. With the help of the Automotive OEMs and the Department of Energy, TARDEC is escalating efforts to define the boundaries for dual-use commercial and military applications of advanced battery technologies through the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium. Additionally, General Motors is supporting TARDEC advanced battery requirements through direct, individual collaboration through a CRADA and an additional newly awarded contract. TARDEC and the automotive OEMs have both identified advanced automotive batteries as a key area for collaboration going forward. In the support of expanding collaboration in advanced batteries, TARDEC has worked with the automotive OEMs and suppliers of battery technologies to assess the scope of effort around establishing a robust, diverse manufacturing base for advanced automotive batteries. This effort recently culminated in a two-day Battery Summit, which involved over 70 participants from industry and government. Discussions covered the technology, policy and manufacturing implications of having a domestic base for the manufacture of advanced batteries. TARDEC intends to continue to work with key stakeholders to identify near term opportunities in the area. Vehicle Intelligence The Army faces high operating and support costs in its aging fleet of vehicles. Currently the Army reduces this heavy cost burden through periodic scheduled inspections and sustainment efforts. To further reduce this cost burden, the Army must move towards an intelligent vehicle architecture. Both the Army and the automotive industry have vested interest in enhancing their platforms by providing predictive maintenance enhancements through prognostic capabilities. This requires equipping vehicles with computing devices, sensors, middleware, and wireless infrastructure. Through these enabling technologies, vehicle intelligence is made possible. This could ultimately enhance operational readiness and reduce lifecycle maintenance costs for ground vehicle platforms by reducing the heavy cost burden of periodic scheduled inspections and automating the supply chain to proactively provision for part replacements to optimize the maintenance repair process. Vehicle intelligence is also an enabling technology for Condition Based Maintenance and (vehicle) Health Monitoring technologies. It is related to existing developments in the commercial automotive industry such as the installation of electronic control units (ECU) and electronic control modules (ECM), computing devices, and sensors. These devices facilitate diagnostic analysis at the vehicle subsystem level. This in-vehicle network provides the ability to diagnose such components as the powertrain, ABS, and critical safety systems. GM Diagnostics has taken this a step further by enabling cellular transmission of data off platform for off-board analysis and status updates through their OnStar system. The Army is working with commercial automotive partners to develop this technology for military use via secured communication pipelines. Robotics--now she addresses robotics in her prepared testimony. I am going into this at some length because what has not been focused on enough in this debate is the security implication of the failure of the big three. There has been a lot of discussion about why it is essential that we not allow the big three to go under in terms of this economy. But what has not yet been focused on specifically, other than general statements about the connection, the current and future connection, is the essential synergy between the big three and the Army particularly but also the military in general. People's minds tend to go back and say that was all World War II, that was all the ``arsenal of democracy,'' and yes, it was, and we are proud of it. But it is also 2008, 2010, 2015, 2020. What kind of equipment our troops will have will depend upon whether we have the kind of connection between our military and our commercial worlds. In the area of vehicles, to disconnect that connection, to rip it apart, to allow the big three to go under, has a massive negative security impact on this country and on the well-being and survival of America's troops. She goes on: robotics, unmanned systems The U.S. Army has a long history of working with the automotive industry on the development of enabling technologies for manned and unmanned systems. Unmanned systems are key resources for our fighting men and women in the Global War on Terrorism. Many of the key technologies currently used on ground robots have their start in cooperative programs between the U.S. Army and the Big 3 Automotive and their tier suppliers. The Army and the automotive companies have several aligned activities in unmanned systems. For example, the Army has several overriding objectives we are trying to achieve for the development and deployment of future unmanned vehicle systems. Primary among these goals are Safe Operations (Safe Ops) and Total Situational Awareness (SA) around the vehicles, necessary because a robot operates by sensing the environment around it at any given moment. Safe Ops and 360 degree SA are also critical for the safe operation of passenger cars on automated highways, which means our goals are aligned perfectly with the programs in the auto industry. Recently, both GM and Ford participated in the series of DARPA Autonomous Vehicle Grand Challenges. The 1st Grand Challenge was held at the California Motor Speedway and it tested the ability of vehicles to move autonomously over structured roads. The 2nd Grand Challenge was a 170 mile cross-country road race in the deserts of Nevada. The 3rd and final challenge, called the DARPA Urban Challenge (DUC), was designed to push the state-of-the-art in autonomous navigation in urban environments, where each competitor had to obey the rules of the road and contend with other robots and driven cars. Many of these robust automotive sensing methodologies are being transitioned to Army programs for integration into both manned and unmanned systems. In every one of these competitions both Ford and GM partnered with leading universities in the U.S. to put together winning teams that finished in the top 5 percent of race finishers (the GM-Carnegie-Mellon team won the DUC in 2007). The close coupling of robotic sensors, actuators and intelligence was enhanced by the collaboration of automotive engineers at the OEMs. Then she goes on with her description of safety issues. There are multiple overlapping safety goals between the commercial automotive industry and the military ground vehicle fleet. Just as injury risk mitigation and thorough modeling and simulation of technologies is important to the commercial automotive manufacturers; these precautions must be taken to reduce the impact to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. Automotive industry OEMs and key suppliers have worked with TARDEC in the development of advanced modeling and simulation efforts to characterize occupant impact during rollover and side impact crashes. TARDEC recently developed ground- breaking full vehicle underbody blast models and methodologies to both accurately predict occupant injury during an energetic event such as a mine/IED blast, and to develop new countermeasures. This effort would not have been possible without heavy leveraging of automotive tools and methodologies from the automotive crashworthiness area. TARDEC's commercial partners have also been critical in advanced technology product development, testing and validation, design studies, and developmental tests. Finally TARDEC relies on the commercial partners for prototyping and large quantity manufacturing capabilities. Advanced lightweight materials is the next subject that she took up in her prepared testimony. One of TARDEC's mandates is to research, develop, engineer, and to leverage lean, agile, advanced manufacturing technologies used by the U.S. Auto Industry, Academia, and other segments of the U.S. Industrial Base. This is accomplished through partnerships and contracts with manufacturers, suppliers, and universities, taking advantage of manufacturing capabilities developed to service the high volume needs of the auto industry and adapt the technologies for manufacturing the low volume production of military components. With the auto industry leading the charge, TARDEC is pursuing several advanced manufacturing processes such as friction stir welding, laser additive and subtractive manufacturing, flexible manufacturing cells using robotics, and water-based environmentally safe painting processes. Then she addresses automotive expertise, knowledge, and education. To maintain technological superiority now and in the future, we need top quality scientists and automotive engineers in our workforce. Alongside the automotive industry, we have always had a shared commitment and felt the collective responsibility to develop the next generation of engineers, and recognized the challenge to do so. TARDEC has long recognized that a scientifically and technologically literate citizenry is our Nation's best hope for a diverse, talented, and productive workforce. To achieve this goal, we have partnered with the automotive industry and universities to develop curriculum that will benefit both TARDEC and the American automotive original equipment manufacturers. We have also been able to address this challenge through our Automotive Research Center, which has created ways for us to partner with universities and allow students the opportunity to develop and work on relevant automotive engineering challenges. Over the years, the automotive industry has made significant contributions to the Army through technology exchange processes available in the ARC [which is the Automotive Research Center]. And in recent years, an increased emphasis on research involving high mileage, low polluting vehicles, as well as the new high technology needs for large trucks, off-road vehicles and robots has provided invaluable data and resources for us towards the Army's long term transformation goals and objectives. In 2007 and 2008, TARDEC supported 52 ARC research projects spanning Power, Mobility, Survivability, Modeling and Simulation technology areas. Ford, Chrysler and General Motors and at least 12 Tier-1 suppliers provided their resources and expertise towards 36 of the 52 research projects. The remaining projects had industry involvement from Tier-2 and Tier-3 suppliers such as large software companies, industry consultants and automotive small businesses. The fact remains [and I will conclude with this] that the need for partnerships and the consistent leveraging of resources is critical for continued innovation, technological breakthroughs. American automotive original equipment manufacturers partnership with TARDEC in events such as [then she lists a whole lot of events] inspires young engineers to consider careers in math and science and helps to develop many needed automotive skill with applicability in DOD's ``real'' workforce environments. Automotive industry support has been crucial in developing the educational infrastructure that has allowed the development of an automotive engineering talent base here in the United States. And that talent base will be central to future efforts to create a safer Nation and a robust manufacturing environment. At this time, when we have to [these are her last words] at this time, when we have to break the dependency on foreign oil, provide energy security for the Nation, and increase soldier protection, it becomes even more critical, [even more critical] to leverage investments, exchange technical ideas to drive innovation, and provide the breakthroughs that are necessary to maintain the dominance of the American military. I very much appreciate the time that I have taken to share with this body the statement of the head of the organization in the Army which is responsible for the technologies in current vehicles and future vehicles. I have done this because there is kind of yet the unstated critical need for the survival of the big three. The stakes for our economy nationally are huge. The failure of the big three would send a tsunami through this already battered economy. Millions of workers would lose their jobs. Dealers in every town and on every Main Street are already reeling from the economy's plunge. Automotive component suppliers, who are in fully half our States, are on the knife's edge already, waiting for us to act. Men and women who work for steel mills and textile factories and glass factories and computer chip factories are waiting and hoping. The financial industry would be at risk as well. A collapsed auto industry would lead to defaults on over $1 billion in corporate bonds, credit default swaps and other financial instruments tied to the auto industry and could send the stock market into another, deeper tailspin. Major additional damage to U.S. financial institution balance sheets would result, throwing our credit markets into even deeper turmoil. Despite these facts, there are still some who say, ``let them go bankrupt, let them go under,'' even though 1 in 10 jobs in this country are tied to the auto industry. In addition to hoping that they will ask themselves why no other government is allowing that to happen to their auto industry, I would also hope they would listen to some experts on the subject of bankruptcy for the auto industry. A recent report released by J.P. Morgan titled, ``Cost of the Alternative,'' described the scenario where one or more of the Big Three are left to file for bankruptcy as ``Credit Crisis Part II.'' It indicated that unemployment would shoot up by 2 percent if one of the Big Three failed, and this failure scenario would require the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to take over more than $100 billion in obligations that the Big Three currently hold. It noted that Ford and GM and their financial arms ``comprise over 10% of the high-yield bond market and the auto sector represents one of the largest sectors in leverage finance for banks.'' Another recent report by the Anderson Economic Group and BBK calculated the costs in the first year following the failure of two of the Big Three. Such a scenario would cost States $12 billion in tax revenues; it would cost the Federal Government $40 billion in income and Social Security taxes, and it would cost an additional $8 billion in unemployment insurance and $5 billion in significantly increased costs to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. The report indicates a high risk that inaction by Congress would result in a permanent shift of manufacturing jobs out of the United States and a dependence on foreign technology. Mr. President, these are risks we cannot take. We must pass this legislation. Without this legislation, one or more of the Big Three will likely collapse in the coming weeks. The U.S. taxpayers would provide a bridge loan to avoid this catastrophe under this bill, but with important protections for their investment, including stock warrants for the Government; limits on excessive executive compensation; a prohibition on golden parachutes; and a prohibition on payments of dividends until the loans are fully repaid. And the so- called auto czar has the ultimate power under this legislation to enforce compliance with the long-term plans of the auto companies that accept these loans: he can call or cancel the loans if he disapproves the auto companies' restructuring plans. We cannot afford to further destabilize Wall Street, and we cannot afford to allow millions of jobs on Main Streets in communities across the country to disappear. The domino effect of failure would ripple across our entire Nation and add untold suffering to an already dire situation. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I wanted to focus on an aspect of this debate that has not achieved adequate attention. That is the tight, important connection between our domestic auto industry and the future security of this Nation and our men and women in uniform. We have no greater responsibility than that. That factor, that synergy, that relationship, that connection, is an essential component of this debate. I hope when our colleagues look at all of the factors, they will consider that important reason for sustaining and supporting an automobile industry in this country. Again, no other Nation is allowing their automotive industry to go down in this global economic disaster we are all in. They have all taken steps to support their industry. We should too, for many reasons. But one of those reasons, one of the most important reasons we are here in the Senate is to make sure that our men and women in uniform always have the best equipment that can be produced in the world. They put their lives at risk. They are entitled to every advanced technology we can give them. Part of the production of those technologies the big three is playing today, tomorrow, and hopefully in the future, is a critical role.

Mr. LEVIN. I did not see my dear friend from Virginia come to the floor. I wish I had, because I wanted to put those parts of my remarks--and they were lengthy, but at a time when he might be hearing them either here or in his office.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my dear friend from Virginia. This will probably be, we keep saying, the last opportunity we have to speak with each other on the floor of the Senate. It may be, it may not be, as it turns out. But I know of no Member of this body who has put the interests of this Nation more deeply in his heart than the Senator from Virginia. There are others who probably share that with him; I know there are, but the focus which I gave here today outlining the current relationship between the big three and the technologies that are embedded right now in our vehicles, and the effort in a collaborative way between our domestic automobile industry and our Army vehicle industry, to give us lighter vehicles, more survivable vehicles, crashworthy vehicles, vehicles that use less gasoline, vehicles that have the global positioning devices that can say exactly where they are and communicate that, these technologies are embedded now and will continue hopefully to always be at the forefront, at the cutting edge of technology to give our troops what I know the Senator from Virginia has devoted his life to; that is, to giving our troops every edge we can. The big three not only has been part of that on the vehicles, as the Senator notably points out in terms of looking back, but that is the current situation--deep connections, synergies, collaboration going on as we speak, and planned for the years ahead. If we rip apart that connection, by allowing the big three to go under, that tremendous capability they have to join with the Army on vehicles, particularly, will be rendered useless or will no longer exist. That would be a terrible tragedy for our Nation's security. Again, I am glad my great friend from Virginia was able to come to the floor to share with me some thoughts about this relationship that is not only historical and one which we take great pride in as a nation, that ability to quickly expand, to turn a manufacturing, an industrial base into an arsenal of democracy. That hopefully will not happen, as the Senator points out. Maybe it is less likely to happen. But we must be there when it does. That aspect has been focused on by others, the need to be able to have a manufacturing base for our national security and to have a base of suppliers for our national security. I have tried to add another aspect to this argument that points to the relationship between the survival of our big three and our national security by pointing out the ongoing relationship in the area of research and development, which has produced critically important technologies currently in our vehicles and developing today the technologies which will make future vehicles.

Mr. LEVIN. Absolutely.

Mr. LEVIN. Thankfully, we still have a few colleagues, including the great Senator from Virginia, who have a personal connection to that war.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Virginia.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 11, 2008, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``World at Risk: A Report from the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senate stand in recess until 3 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Levin pertaining to the introduction of S. 3715 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.