Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent that be done.

My amendment will release the 55-percent equity position of the Department of Labor in the State-owned Detroit Labor Building in anticipation of its sale.

I have been assured by the Office of the Governor of Michigan that should my amendment be accepted, the entirety of the 55 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the building that would have otherwise been remitted to the Federal Government will instead be used by the State of Michigan to provide job training grants.

Mr. President, I understand this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I know it has been cleared by Senator Enzi.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from Mississippi for his understanding of this matter. I know it held up the Senate for a few minutes. I greatly appreciate it.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President: I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to a situation facing one of my constituents, Ibrahim Parlak, who, up until a year ago, was living the American dream. After moving to this country in 1991, through hard work and dedication, he worked his way up from being a busboy to owning his own restaurant, Cafe; Gulistan, in Harbert, MI. Mr. Parlak has spent over a decade of hard, honest work and has led an upstanding life with his family and community. However, now, he may be deported.

Ibrahim Parlak, a Kurd born in southern Turkey, came to the United States seeking asylum in 1991. In his asylum application, Mr. Parlak disclosed that he had been associated with the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) in

the 1980s, that he was involved in an armed skirmish at the Turkish border in 1988, and that he had been imprisoned in Turkey as a result of these facts. In 1992, Mr. Parlak was granted asylum due to the persecution and torture that he suffered at the hands of the Turkish government. The Immigration and Naturalization Service believed that Mr. Parlak had a credible fear of returning to Turkey.

In 1993, Mr. Parlak wanted to take the next step and become a United States citizen. However, when he filled out his application to become a lawful permanent resident, he did not check a box stating that he had been ``arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined or imprisoned for violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations,'' in or outside of the United States. Mr. Parlak has stated that due to his limited English skills, he misunderstood the form, and believed that the question related only to his activities since he entered the United States. Again, Mr. Parlak had already given the Government the information surrounding his 1988 arrest and conviction in his earlier asylum application. He had also provided documents at the time of his asylum, in Turkish, that described the Turkish government's view of his association with the PKK.

Last July, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained Mr. Parlak and DHS is now moving to deport Mr. Parlak, claiming a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. Further, the Department of Homeland Security states that Mr. Parlak has been convicted of an aggravated felony after admission to the United States because, in 2004, the now-disbanded Turkish Security Court reopened his case from 1990 and re-sentenced him for the crime of Kurdish separatism. The ``new'' sentence imposed by the Security Court required less jail time than Mr. Parlak had already served, and the Security Court closed its file on Mr. Parlak. Turkey does not seek his extradition and has, in fact, no interest in his return and will not issue a special passport for that purpose.

Despite his strong ties to his community and the lack of evidence that he is a flight risk, Mr. Parlak continues to be held in prison without bond. The Department of Homeland Security says that Mr. Parlak is a ``terrorist,'' and therefore cannot be released. This ``terrorist'' designation is based solely on Mr. Parlak's association with the PKK in the 1980s. However, not only did Mr. Parlak outline his involvement with the PKK in his asylum application, at the time Mr. Parlak was associated with the PKK, it was not designated as a terrorist organization. The State Department did not add the PKK to its list of terrorist organizations until 1996.

I am concerned with the fact that the government continues to detain and is attempting to deport this model immigrant over activities he disclosed in his application for asylum, an application which, again, was granted. While it may be disputed why the box was not checked accurately, it is incongruous to conclude that he was intentionally hiding those facts from the Department of Justice in 1993, when he detailed them explicitly to the Department of Justice in 1991.

Mr. President, Mr. Parlak is a good man and should be given the chance to remain in the United States and continue the life that he has built for his community, his daughter and himself all these years. Our history is built upon the courage and hard work of immigrants who opposed brutal oppression and fled to our country seeking a new life. Ibrahim Parlak is one of them.

Mr. President, today when so many Americans have to dig deep to pay the taxes owed to Uncle Sam, it is particularly appropriate that we focus on the hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. Treasury is shortchanged each year by those who abuse the tax system. Because it's not just the Treasury that is shortchanged; it's honest taxpayers throughout this country who end up picking up the tab.

Tax cheats are an insult to the men and women who serve in our military, the children who attend our schools, and the millions who rely on Social Security. Tax cheats make it harder to maintain our highways, protect our borders, advance medical research, and inspect our food. Not only do they drain money from the Treasury, they help deepen the deficit ditch that threatens the economic well-being of our children and grandchildren. They also shift a huge burden onto the backs of the honest taxpayers in this country.

It is also particularly appropriate to focus on the need to crack down on tax cheats during this time of year when Congressional appropriators decide how to direct the Nation's resources. Just last month, the IRS updated its estimate of the Nation's ``tax gap''--the difference between the amount of taxes owed by taxpayers and the amount collected. The total tax gap in 2001 is now estimated to have been between $312 billion and $353 billion, and some experts believe it's even higher. $350 billion is more than the government spent on all of Medicare last year. It is three-quarters of the size of the Federal deficit.

In fact, the tax gap is so huge that each individual U.S. taxpayer is now forced to pay more than $2,000 in taxes annually to make up for the taxpayers cheating Uncle Sam. The plain truth is that tax evaders are hurting honest Americans--not only by shrinking available resources for essential government services, but also by literally sticking honest Americans with the tax bill they've dodged.

One of the greatest dodges is abusive tax shelters. For more than 2 years, as ranking member of the U.S. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I've been investigating the abusive tax shelters being developed and sold by professional firms such as accounting firms, law firms and banks. Our investigation found tax shelter promoters knowingly selling dubious tax shelters to hundreds of U.S. taxpayers, in part, because they knew the IRS lacked the resources to stop them.

One of the tax shelters examined by the subcommittee, called ``BLIPS,'' was sold to people facing large tax bills by accounting giant KPMG. The IRS is now tracking down the hundreds of individuals who bought BLIPS or a similar tax dodge. This abusive tax shelter was included in the $3.2 billion settlement announced by the IRS just last month. This successful settlement shows how huge the tax shelter problem is, and how much can be done when the IRS enforces the law. It also shows how critical it is for Congress to provide the IRS with adequate enforcement dollars to crack down on abusive tax shelters, the promoters who push them, and the taxpayers who evade their tax obligations.

The IRS also needs significant resources to track tax dodgers who hide their income in tax havens. An estimated 1 to 2 million individuals dodge U.S. taxes by depositing funds in offshore bank accounts in tax havens with secrecy laws that impede IRS review. A recent study found that, in 2003, U.S. multinational corporations shifted $75 billion in domestic profits to tax havens, leading to an estimated tax revenue loss of $10 to $20 billion. In addition, the Government Accountability Office has found that 59 of the top 100 Federal contractors owned tax haven subsidiaries, raising tax questions that the IRS simply doesn't have the resources to unravel. U.S. tax dollars hidden in a tax haven leaves more honest taxpayers to make up the difference.

Despite these and other growing tax shelter and tax haven abuses, the resources made available to the IRS for tax enforcement have been reduced over the past decade. Since fiscal year 1996, for example, the number of IRS enforcement personnel has declined by 20 percent. The IRS audit rate for businesses has dropped to just two audits for every 1,000 businesses in 2003, a decline of 62 percent in 6 years. In addition to fewer audits, there have been fewer penalties, fewer tax evasion prosecutions, and virtually no effort to prosecute corporate tax crimes. Corporations used to pay 35 percent of our nation's tax bill, but now they pay less than 10 percent. In a 2004 study that Senator Dorgan and I requested, the Government Accountability Office found that 94 percent of corporations who filed income tax returns with the IRS from 1996 to 2000 paid taxes of less than 5 percent of their income, and 60 percent didn't pay any Federal corporate income tax at all.

Last year, the IRS obtained sufficient funds for a slight increase in its enforcement efforts. The result was a $43.1 billion increase in enforcement revenue a jump of 15 percent over the previous year. The lesson here, which is consistent with years of data, is that a relatively small increase in tax enforcement resources pays for itself many times over by increasing the amount of revenue collected. In fact, for every dollar invested in IRS' budget, the service yields more than $4 dollars in enforcement revenue. Beyond the additional revenues collected, increased IRS enforcement deters those who might otherwise have dodged their tax obligations and reassures honest taxpayers that compliance with the law is not a chump's game. I can't think of many better investments to build respect for the law and respect for the honest Americans who play by the rules and meet their tax obligations.

President Bush has apparently come around to a similar conclusion. In a budget otherwise full of cutbacks, President Bush has advocated allocating $6.9 billion to tax enforcement efforts in FY 2006, with an emphasis on high-income individuals and corporations. This reflects an increase of nearly 8 percent over last year's budget. Congress should support this request and provide the funds needed to stop tax evasion and ensure tax fairness. Otherwise honest taxpayers will continue to shoulder more and more of the tax burden left by abusive tax shelters and tax haven gamesmanship. It is time to take action against the tax cheats who not only undermine the integrity of the Federal tax system, but also hike the tax bills for honest taxpayers.

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment Senator Kennedy has addressed, which was introduced by Senator Durbin. It represents an effort to obtain information that is critically important to the American people in reaching a judgment, critically important to the Congress in reaching a judgment, critically important, I believe, to our military leaders, first and foremost, in reaching a judgment as to how quickly we can remove forces from Iraq.

It is in everybody's interest that we succeed in Iraq. Some of us who were highly critical of the way we went into Iraq--more unilaterally than we should have, without the support of any Muslim nations, making our presence a Western occupation of a Muslim nation, with all of the problems that unleashes, and many of us who have been critical of the way in which the Iraqi army was disbanded unilaterally, without much thought, and the way in which we did not have a plan for a violent aftermath when we went in, the way in which we didn't listen to our military leaders in terms of the need to prepare for the possibility of the violent aftermath. All of us, those of us who were critics and those of us who were supporters, now have a common interest in Iraq and have had, once the decision was made to go into Iraq, and that is that we succeed in Iraq.

Success in Iraq requires that the Iraqis take over their own defense and their own security. This amendment will help give us a roadmap toward understanding how long it will take, what is necessary, what the cost will be for the Iraqis to take over their own security, the key to our exit, first reductions in our American forces, and then to our ultimate departure from Iraq, and the key to it is how quickly we can turn over to Iraq their own security.

This amendment sets forth a number of reporting requirements, which will help us to make a judgment as to how quickly that can be done, which will help the American people to understand there is a strategy here, there are markers along the road we are on which will tell us whether we are achieving that essential security and, more importantly, whether the Iraqis are achieving that essential security for themselves.

Two things are going to be necessary here for success to be achieved. One is to secure the area and the other is a political accommodation between the people in Iraq--people who have different religious beliefs, different ethnic backgrounds, people who are now going to have to put themselves together to form a nation.

In terms of the training of Iraqi troops, we have very different estimates over the months, and it is very difficult for us in Congress and for the American people to make a judgment as to how quickly we are going to be able to reduce our presence in Iraq--a presence which has fueled the insurgency against us, which is used as a propaganda tool against us, because we are characterized as Western occupiers in a Muslim nation. The longer we stay there, the more troops we have there, the more we play into the hands of those who want to destroy us and destroy the hopes of Iraqis for a nation.

I want to give a few examples of the discrepancies in the characterization of the ability of the Iraqis to protect and defend themselves. Back in September of last year, President Bush said the following:

Nearly 100,000 fully trained--

I emphasize fully trained.

--and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers, and other

security personnel are working today.

But then George Casey, our commander of the multinational force in Iraq, in January said the following:

When Prime Minister Allawi took office in June of 2004, he

had one deployable battalion. Today, he has 40. When you

multiply 40 battalions that are deployable with the number of

people in each battalion, it comes out to approximately

30,000 personnel.

So when General Casey spoke in January, months after President Bush told us there were 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, there were still but 30,000 personnel in Iraq who were deployable.

This is what General Myers said in February: That there are about 40,000 Iraqis in the police and military battalions, 40,000 that can ``go anywhere in the country and take on almost any threat.''

That is a very different impression than is given by the weekly status reports we get from the administration. This is the State Department's most recent weekly status report as to what they call trained-and-equipped Iraqi forces--152,000 this week.

There are not 152,000 Iraqi forces capable of taking on insurgents. If we are lucky, the number is about one-third of that. But we have to know two numbers, not just one, not just the weekly State Department number as to how many people are trained and equipped, but how many of those people are sufficiently trained and equipped so they can take on the insurgency. That is the critical number--how many are capable militarily of taking on insurgents.

I will give one other example of the discrepancy of the characterization of the capability of Iraqi forces.

When this supplemental in front of us was provided to us in February, this is what the supplemental represented to us: That 89 of the 90 battalions of Iraqi security forces that have been fielded--89 of 90-- are ``lightly equipped and armed and have very limited mobility and sustainment capabilities.'' That is about 95 percent plus of the Iraqi security forces today, according to the supplemental request; 95 percent are lightly equipped and armed and have limited mobility and sustainment. How different that is from the most recent weekly report we just received of 152,000 troops.

It is essential, it is critically important, no matter what one's views of the war are--the wisdom of going in, how well run it has been since we went in--no matter how pessimistic or optimistic one is, no matter how critical or positive one is, in terms of the operations and the way they were planned or not planned and the decision to go in as we did, we must have numbers, we must have estimates, which this amendment would require in regular reports, as to what the capabilities are of the Iraqi forces.

We need two numbers. We need that total number, 152,000, but we need the number of Iraqi forces that are capable of taking on the insurgents: How many are deployable? how many have real mobility and sustainment capabilities? How many are well trained and equipped so they can take on the insurgents?

That number is critical to Iraq. It is critical to Americans. Americans have the right to know the information this amendment requires be provided in regular reports.

I have one other comment before I yield the floor. In addition to the security requirements that must be met so

we can say that our involvement in Iraq has been a success, there must be a political accommodation. That political accommodation, in many ways, is more complicated than the military situation. We need people who now distrust each other, people who have attacked each other over the decades, to now come together politically and to work out a new constitution which will protect the rights of minorities in Iraq.

We have a major group in Iraq, the Shi'a, who feel, and properly so, that a small minority of Sunni Baathists, particularly in the leadership of the Baathist political movement, attacked the Shi'as with gas and with other means. These are Iraqis who were destroyed by Iraqis, by Saddam Hussein and the henchmen who were around Saddam Hussein. So the Shi'a community needs to accommodate themselves to a significant protection for a Sunni minority, and that Sunni minority must get used to the fact, the reality, the Shi'as are the majority of Iraqis, and they have elected a majority of members who are going to be present in the Iraqi Assembly. Of course, there is the yearning of the Kurds for significant autonomy. All that needs to be put together.

It is a very complicated equation for that to happen. As we hopefully achieve some success on the security side, we must keep a very wary eye open as to what is happening or not happening on the political side of the challenge in Iraq.

The constitution will be written by a commission which will be selected by an assembly which is now in place. That assembly will have its Prime Minister within the next few days and will then be able to select a constitutional commission which will write a constitution. That commission needs to reflect the Iraqi people, not the makeup of the assembly which has much too small a percentage of Sunnis, given the fact they did not vote. But the Shi'a majority needs to be wise enough, in selecting the commission that will write the constitution, to have a broadly representative commission that will write a constitution that is protective of the minorities in Iraq, that will guarantee majority rights, of course, but that in any decent nation will protect the minority as well.

That is the challenge they face. They are supposed to meet that challenge by August. They will not do that, obviously. They have a 6- month extension beyond that where they must write a constitution. Getting that constitution written is a major challenge, and anything we can do to facilitate that, it seems to me, would be very wise, indeed.

We have two challenges, one of which is addressed in the amendment before us relative to Iraqi security and the progress they are hopefully making, to give us the information that is important for a judgment to which the American people, the Congress, and our uniformed military are entitled from this administration. I hope this has broad support and the Senate adopts the Durbin amendment.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, it has been reported that the Senate may consider the misnamed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in the near future. I was pleased that this legislation was defeated during the 108th Congress, and I continue to oppose its passage.

This bill would rewrite well-accepted principles of liability law, providing the gun industry legal protections not enjoyed by other industries. It would grant broad immunity from liability even in cases where gross negligence or recklessness led to someone being injured or killed. Enactment of this special interest legislation for the gun industry would also lead to the termination of a wide range of pending and prospective civil cases, depriving gun violence victims with legitimate cases of their day in court.

It would be all the more irresponsible for the Senate to pass the gun industry immunity legislation while also continuing to ignore many gun safety issues that are critically important to the law enforcement community. Recent editorials in major newspapers around the country have highlighted Congress' inability to enact common sense gun safety legislation. An editorial from Monday's edition of the Los Angeles Times stated: Over the last four years, the president and his congressional allies have repudiated or quietly eviscerated key gun laws and regulations. Now they are poised to shield firearms makers and sellers from nearly all damage claims when their products kill or maim.

Thus far, Congress has failed to act to reauthorize the assault weapons ban that expired on September 13, 2004. This inaction allowed criminals and terrorists potential easy access to many of the most powerful and deadly firearms manufactured. In addition, Congress has failed to close a loophole that allows individuals on terrorist watch lists to buy these weapons and has failed to pass legislation that would, at the very least, require a background check for individuals attempting to buy the previously banned assault weapons at gun shows.

Rather than considering a bill to protect members of the gun industry from liability, we should help protect our families and communities by addressing the loopholes that potentially allow known and suspected terrorists to legally purchase military style firearms within our own borders. I again urge my colleagues to take up and pass common sense gun safety legislation that will address these loopholes and the threats they pose.

I ask unanimous consent that the April 11, 2005 Los Angeles Times editorial titled ``Remember Gun Control?'' be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, this year marks the 150th anniversary of completion of two of the four Soo Locks in the St. Marys River. These locks, completed in 1855, provide the link between Lake Superior and the rest of the Great Lakes at Sault Ste. Marie, MI. These locks have proved to be vital to the economy of the Great Lakes region as well as the nation as a whole. The locks, in fact, handle more cargo than the Panama Canal annually. The history of the Soo Locks is really the story of the settlement of the Midwest and the rise of the region's industrial legacy.

Lake Superior is separated from Lake Huron by the St. Marys River. Prior to the locks, rapids made navigation of this river impossible. The Ojibway Indians, and later white settlers, were forced to portage their small

boats around the rapids to reach Lake Superior. Larger ships had to have their cargo unloaded and then moved by wagon to the other side of the rapids, where it could be loaded onto another ship.

In the 1840s, extensive copper and iron mining began in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and several boomtowns soon sprang up along Lake Superior's shores. Due to the lack of roads, all travel and trade was done by boat. The increased traffic soon made it clear that continuing the loading and unloading of cargo at Sault Ste. Marie would not be possible.

An act of Congress in 1852 gave 750,000 acres of public land to the State of Michigan for use as compensation to the company that would build a system of locks between Lake Superior and the other Great Lakes. The project was undertaken by the Fairbanks Scale Company due to their mining interests in the Upper Peninsula.

Despite poor building conditions during the cold winters, the two 350-foot locks were constructed within the 2-year deadline set by the State. On May 31, 1855, the locks were turned over to the State of Michigan and named the State Lock.

The opening of the State Lock decreased the cost of shipping iron ore from the Upper Peninsula to industrial centers like Detroit, Chicago, and Cleveland, by more than half. This, along with railroad improvements, allowed Michigan's Upper Peninsula to fuel America's industrial revolution. Michigan was able to lead the nation in iron production for almost 50 years. Even today, about 22 percent of the iron ore produced in the United States comes from Marquette County alone.

In 1881, it became clear that new locks would be necessary to keep up with growing traffic. Additionally, the State did not have the funds to improve the existing locks, so they were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, where they have been ever since.

The current lock system consists of a total of four locks, two of which are shallower and no longer used. The other two, the MacArthur and the Poe locks, were completed in 1943 and 1968 respectively. The MacArthur lock is used most often and can accommodate ships of up to 800 feet in length. Larger ships need to use the Poe lock as it can handle ships of up to 1,000 feet in length. There are plans to build a new lock in place of the two unused locks, but funding has not been appropriated. Common cargos that pass through the locks today include iron ore, limestone, coal, grain, cement, salt and sand.

Today the Great Lakes shipping industry and the Soo Locks still allow many industries to stay competitive. The Soo Locks shaped the economy of the Great Lakes region, and the engineers who helped design and construct the locks truly deserve to be remembered and honored.

Mr. President, today my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005. This bill, which reauthorizes the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to protect the nation's aquatic ecosystems. Invasive species are not a new problem for this country, but what is so important about this bill is that this is the first real effort to take a comprehensive approach toward the problem of aquatic invasive species. The bill deals with the prevention of introductions, the screening of new aquatic organisms that do come into the country, the rapid response to invasions, and the research to implement the provisions of this bill.

During the development of this country, there were more than people immigrating to this country. More than 6,500 non-indigenous invasive species have been introduced into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments and wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten biodiversity nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes.

In fact, the aquatic nuisance species became a major issue for Congress back in the late eighties when the zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now, 20 States are fighting to control them. The Great Lakes region spends about $30 million per year to keep water pipes from becoming clogged with zebra mussels.

Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic invasive species was and still is maritime commerce. Most invasive species are contained in the water that ships use for

ballast to maintain trim and stability. Aquatic invaders such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into the Great Lakes when ships, often from nations, pulled into port and discharged their ballast water. In addition to ballast water, aquatic invaders can also attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains.

Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that has reduced, but not eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes, and the Coast Guard is in the rule-making process to turn the voluntary ballast water exchange reporting requirement into a mandatory ballast water exchange program for all of our coasts. The current law requires that ships entering the Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water exchange.'' Unfortunately, alternative treatments have not been fully developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of ballast technology do not know what standard they are trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because ultimately, only on-board ballast water treatment will adequately reduce the threat of new aquatic nuisance species being introduced through ballast water.

Our bill addresses this problem. First, this bill establishes a deadline for the Coast Guard and EPA to establish a standard for ballast water management and requires that the standard reduce the number of plankton in the ballast water by 99 percent or the best performance that technology can provide. This way, technology vendors and the maritime industry know what they should be striving to achieve and when they will be expected to achieve it. After 2011, all ships that enter any U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles will be required to use a ballast water treatment technology that meets this standard.

I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched, and some are currently being tested on-board ships. The range of technologies include ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, deoxygenation, ozone, and several others. Each of these technologies has a different price tag attached to it. It is not my intention to overburden the maritime industry with an expensive requirement to install technology. In fact, the legislation states that the final ballast water technology standard must be based on the best performing technology that is economically achievable. That means that the Coast Guard must consider what technology is available, and if there is no economically achievable technology available to a class of vessels, then the standard will not require ballast technology for that class of vessels, subject to review every three years. I do not believe this will be the case, however, because the approach of this bill creates a clear incentive for treatment vendors to develop affordable equipment for the market.

Technology will always be evolving, and we hope that affordable technology will become available that completely eliminates the risk of new introductions. Therefore, it is important that the Coast Guard regularly review and revise the standard so that it reflects what the best technology currently available is and whether it is economically achievable.

There are other important provisions of the bill that also address prevention. For instance, the bill encourages the Coast Guard to consult with Canada, Mexico, and other countries in developing guidelines to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is also charged with conducting a pathway analysis to identify other high risk pathways for introduction of nuisance species and implement management strategies to reduce those introductions. And this legislation, for the first time, establishes a process to screen live organisms entering the country for the first time for non-research purposes. Organisms believed to be invasive would be imported based on conditions that prevent them from becoming a nuisance. Such a screening process might have prevented such species as the Snakehead, which has established itself in the Potomac River here in the DC area, from being imported.

The third title of this bill addresses early detection of new invasions and the rapid response to invasions as well as the control of aquatic nuisance species that do establish themselves. If fully funded, this bill will provide a rapid response fund for states to implement emergency strategies when outbreaks occur. The bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up the Mississippi through the Canal into the Great Lakes. Equally important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system.

Lastly, the bill authorizes additional research which will identify threats and the tools to address those threats.

Though invasive species threaten the entire Nation's aquatic ecosystem, I am particularly concerned with the damage that invasive species have done to the Great Lakes. There are now roughly 180 invasive species in the Great Lakes, and it is estimated that a new species is introduced every 8 months. Invasive species cause disruptions in the food chain, which is now causing the decline of certain fish. Invasive species are believe to be the cause of a new dead zone in Lake Erie. And invasive species compete with native species for habitat.

This bill addresses the ``NOBOB'' or No Ballast on Board problem which is when ships report having no ballast when they enter the Great Lakes. However, a layer of sediment and small bit of water that cannot be pumped out is still in the ballast tanks. So when water is taken on and then discharged all within the Great Lakes, a new species that was still living in that small bit of sediment and water may be introduced. By requiring technology to be installed, this bill addresses a very serious issue in the Great Lakes.

All in all, the bill would cost between $160 million and $170 million each year. This is a lot of money, but it is a critical investment. As those of us from the Great Lakes know, the economic damage that invasive species can cause is much greater. However, compared to the annual cost of invasive species, the cost of this bill is minimal. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill swiftly through the Senate.

Mr. President, today my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005. This bill, which reauthorizes the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to protect the nation's aquatic ecosystems. Invasive species are not a new problem for this country, but what is so important about this bill is that this is the first real effort to take a comprehensive approach toward the problem of aquatic invasive species. The bill deals with the prevention of introductions, the screening of new aquatic organisms that do come into the country, the rapid response to invasions, and the research to implement the provisions of this bill.

During the development of this country, there were more than people immigrating to this country. More than 6,500 non-indigenous invasive species have been introduced into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments and wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten biodiversity nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes.

In fact, the aquatic nuisance species became a major issue for Congress back in the late eighties when the zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now, 20 States are fighting to control them. The Great Lakes region spends about $30 million per year to keep water pipes from becoming clogged with zebra mussels.

Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic invasive species was and still is maritime commerce. Most invasive species are contained in the water that ships use for

ballast to maintain trim and stability. Aquatic invaders such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into the Great Lakes when ships, often from nations, pulled into port and discharged their ballast water. In addition to ballast water, aquatic invaders can also attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains.

Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that has reduced, but not eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes, and the Coast Guard is in the rule-making process to turn the voluntary ballast water exchange reporting requirement into a mandatory ballast water exchange program for all of our coasts. The current law requires that ships entering the Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water exchange.'' Unfortunately, alternative treatments have not been fully developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of ballast technology do not know what standard they are trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because ultimately, only on-board ballast water treatment will adequately reduce the threat of new aquatic nuisance species being introduced through ballast water.

Our bill addresses this problem. First, this bill establishes a deadline for the Coast Guard and EPA to establish a standard for ballast water management and requires that the standard reduce the number of plankton in the ballast water by 99 percent or the best performance that technology can provide. This way, technology vendors and the maritime industry know what they should be striving to achieve and when they will be expected to achieve it. After 2011, all ships that enter any U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles will be required to use a ballast water treatment technology that meets this standard.

I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched, and some are currently being tested on-board ships. The range of technologies include ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, deoxygenation, ozone, and several others. Each of these technologies has a different price tag attached to it. It is not my intention to overburden the maritime industry with an expensive requirement to install technology. In fact, the legislation states that the final ballast water technology standard must be based on the best performing technology that is economically achievable. That means that the Coast Guard must consider what technology is available, and if there is no economically achievable technology available to a class of vessels, then the standard will not require ballast technology for that class of vessels, subject to review every three years. I do not believe this will be the case, however, because the approach of this bill creates a clear incentive for treatment vendors to develop affordable equipment for the market.

Technology will always be evolving, and we hope that affordable technology will become available that completely eliminates the risk of new introductions. Therefore, it is important that the Coast Guard regularly review and revise the standard so that it reflects what the best technology currently available is and whether it is economically achievable.

There are other important provisions of the bill that also address prevention. For instance, the bill encourages the Coast Guard to consult with Canada, Mexico, and other countries in developing guidelines to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is also charged with conducting a pathway analysis to identify other high risk pathways for introduction of nuisance species and implement management strategies to reduce those introductions. And this legislation, for the first time, establishes a process to screen live organisms entering the country for the first time for non-research purposes. Organisms believed to be invasive would be imported based on conditions that prevent them from becoming a nuisance. Such a screening process might have prevented such species as the Snakehead, which has established itself in the Potomac River here in the DC area, from being imported.

The third title of this bill addresses early detection of new invasions and the rapid response to invasions as well as the control of aquatic nuisance species that do establish themselves. If fully funded, this bill will provide a rapid response fund for states to implement emergency strategies when outbreaks occur. The bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up the Mississippi through the Canal into the Great Lakes. Equally important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system.

Lastly, the bill authorizes additional research which will identify threats and the tools to address those threats.

Though invasive species threaten the entire Nation's aquatic ecosystem, I am particularly concerned with the damage that invasive species have done to the Great Lakes. There are now roughly 180 invasive species in the Great Lakes, and it is estimated that a new species is introduced every 8 months. Invasive species cause disruptions in the food chain, which is now causing the decline of certain fish. Invasive species are believe to be the cause of a new dead zone in Lake Erie. And invasive species compete with native species for habitat.

This bill addresses the ``NOBOB'' or No Ballast on Board problem which is when ships report having no ballast when they enter the Great Lakes. However, a layer of sediment and small bit of water that cannot be pumped out is still in the ballast tanks. So when water is taken on and then discharged all within the Great Lakes, a new species that was still living in that small bit of sediment and water may be introduced. By requiring technology to be installed, this bill addresses a very serious issue in the Great Lakes.

All in all, the bill would cost between $160 million and $170 million each year. This is a lot of money, but it is a critical investment. As those of us from the Great Lakes know, the economic damage that invasive species can cause is much greater. However, compared to the annual cost of invasive species, the cost of this bill is minimal. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill swiftly through the Senate.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commemorate an historic event that changed the world. Fifty years ago today, Dr. Thomas Francis, Jr., director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center and founding chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, announced that the Salk polio vaccine was ``safe, effective, and potent.''

That announcement marked the culmination of the most comprehensive field trials ever conducted, unprecedented in scope and magnitude. In the early 1950s, Dr. Jonas Salk, a postdoctoral student of Dr. Francis at the University of Michigan, developed a promising vaccine against poliomyelitis in his laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Salk returned to the University of Michigan to work with his longtime mentor, Dr. Francis, who led the year-long field trials demonstrating that ``the vaccine works.'' More than 300,000 individuals participated in the work of the trials, including 20,000 physicians and public health officers, 40,000 registered nurses, 14,000 school principals, and 200,000 volunteers. More than 100 statisticians and epidemiologists tabulated data from the approximately 1.8 million children across the United States, Canada, and Finland who were involved in the trial. These brave children, who stepped forward to receive a shot not knowing if it would be the real vaccine or a placebo or whether it would be safe or harmful, are now affectionately known as polio pioneers.

While we rarely consider the possibility of contracting polio today, let me remind you that for generations polio was one of the most feared childhood diseases. Poliomyelitis, a neuromuscular disease also known as infantile paralysis, is caused by the polio virus. The virus invades nerve cells in the spinal cord, resulting in weakness or paralysis of the limbs and muscles. Prior to the successful work of Drs. Salk and Thomas, no one knew how to prevent polio, and there was no cure for the disease. Hot weather in late summer was ``polio season,'' bringing on a rash of new cases of paralytic polio each year. In 1916, a devastating epidemic struck New York, killing 9,000 people and leaving 27,000 disabled. For the next 40 years, not a summer passed without an epidemic occurring somewhere in the U.S. In the 1940s and 1950s, the number of cases reported in the U.S. ranged from 40,000 to 60,000 each year. The warmer months of the year were termed ``nightmare summers of quarantine and contagion.'' President Roosevelt, who suffered personally from the effects of polio, founded the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, now called the March of Dimes, and called upon millions of private citizens to donate dimes to fund the foundation's work to fight polio. Today, polio has been nearly eradicated.

Fifty years ago this morning, before more than 500 scientists, physicians, and reporters at Rackham Auditorium in Ann Arbor, Dr. Francis told an anxious world of parents that the Salk vaccine had been proven to be effective in preventing polio. Please join me in honoring the success of Drs. Francis and Salk in combating this devastating disease.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Voinovich in introducing the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005.

Our bill will allow States to get back a fairer share of what they contribute in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. We do this by increasing the Federal minimum guaranteed funding level for highways to 95 percent from the current 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions made to the Federal Highway Trust Fund in gas tax payments.

Increasing this minimum guarantee to 95 percent will bring us one step closer to achieving fairness in the distribution of Federal highway funds to States.

Historically about 20 States, including Michigan, known as ``donor'' States, have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in Washington than were returned in transportation infrastructure spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have received more transportation funding than they paid into the Highway Trust Fund.

This came about in 1956 when a number of small States and large Western States banded together to develop a formula to distribute Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would benefit from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have tenaciously defended it.

At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low- population predominately Western States getting more funds than they contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that. However, there is no justification for any State getting more than its fair share.

Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long struggle to change these outdated formulas. Through these battles, some progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5 cent minimum return for each State.

We still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and other States on the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to pay for badly needed transportation improvements in Michigan alone and the jobs that go with it. Based on FHWA data, we calculate that Michigan would have received over $55 million in additional funds in FY 2004 under the Voinovich-Levin 95 percent minimum guarantee bill. That's a critically important difference for Michigan each year. The same is true for other donor States that stand to get back millions more of their gas tax dollars currently being sent to other States. There's no logical reason for some States to be forced to continue to send that money to other states to subsidize their road and bridge projects and to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair and unjustifiable.

With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to determine how much a State will receive from the Highway Trust Fund are antiquated and do not relate to what a State's real needs or contributions are.

The Voinovich-Levin bill is a consensus bill developed with the help of donor State Department of Transportation agencies and their coalition working group. This legislation would increase the minimum guarantee from 90.5 percent to 95 percent for all States. With this legislation, we intend to send a strong message to our colleagues and the authorizing Committee about the need to address the equity issue in the highway reauthorization bill. We are determined to make progress in this bill to distribute the highway funds in a more equitable manner so that every State gets its fair share.

This is simply an issue of fairness and we will not be satisfied until we achieve it.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Voinovich in introducing the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005.

Our bill will allow States to get back a fairer share of what they contribute in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. We do this by increasing the Federal minimum guaranteed funding level for highways to 95 percent from the current 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions made to the Federal Highway Trust Fund in gas tax payments.

Increasing this minimum guarantee to 95 percent will bring us one step closer to achieving fairness in the distribution of Federal highway funds to States.

Historically about 20 States, including Michigan, known as ``donor'' States, have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in Washington than were returned in transportation infrastructure spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have received more transportation funding than they paid into the Highway Trust Fund.

This came about in 1956 when a number of small States and large Western States banded together to develop a formula to distribute Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would benefit from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have tenaciously defended it.

At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low- population predominately Western States getting more funds than they contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that. However, there is no justification for any State getting more than its fair share.

Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long struggle to change these outdated formulas. Through these battles, some progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5 cent minimum return for each State.

We still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and other States on the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to pay for badly needed transportation improvements in Michigan alone and the jobs that go with it. Based on FHWA data, we calculate that Michigan would have received over $55 million in additional funds in FY 2004 under the Voinovich-Levin 95 percent minimum guarantee bill. That's a critically important difference for Michigan each year. The same is true for other donor States that stand to get back millions more of their gas tax dollars currently being sent to other States. There's no logical reason for some States to be forced to continue to send that money to other states to subsidize their road and bridge projects and to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair and unjustifiable.

With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to determine how much a State will receive from the Highway Trust Fund are antiquated and do not relate to what a State's real needs or contributions are.

The Voinovich-Levin bill is a consensus bill developed with the help of donor State Department of Transportation agencies and their coalition working group. This legislation would increase the minimum guarantee from 90.5 percent to 95 percent for all States. With this legislation, we intend to send a strong message to our colleagues and the authorizing Committee about the need to address the equity issue in the highway reauthorization bill. We are determined to make progress in this bill to distribute the highway funds in a more equitable manner so that every State gets its fair share.

This is simply an issue of fairness and we will not be satisfied until we achieve it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Craig Thomas, Chuck Grassley and Debbie Stabenow in introducing the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. Our bill is based on a straightforward premise: it is unfair for Federal Prison Industries to deny businesses in the private sector an opportunity to compete for sales to their own government.

We have made immeasurable progress on this issue since I first introduced a similar bill ten years ago. It may seem incredible, but at that time, Federal Prison Industries (FPI) could bar private sector companies from competing for a federal contract. Under the law establishing Federal Prison Industries, if Federal Prison Industries said that it wanted a contract, it would get that contract, regardless whether a company in the private sector could provide the product better, cheaper, or faster.

Four years ago, the Senate took a giant step toward addressing this inequity when we voted 74-24 to end Federal Prison Industries' monopoly on Department of Defense contracts. Not only was that provision enacted into law, we were able to strengthen it with a second provision in last year's defense bill. Last year, we took another important step, enacting an appropriations provision which extends the DOD rules to other Federal agencies. This means that, for the first time, private sector companies should be able to compete against for contracts awarded by all Federal agencies.

Despite this progress, work remains to be done. We have heard reports from federal procurement officials and from small businesses that FPI continues to claim that it retains the mandatory source status that protected it from competition for so long. This kind of misleading statement may undermine the right to compete that we have fought so hard for so long to establish.

In addition, FPI continues to sell its services into interstate commerce on an unlimited basis. I am concerned that the sale of prison labor into commerce could have the effect of undermining companies and work forces that are already in a weakened position as a result of foreign competition. We have long taken the position as a nation that prison-made goods should not be sold into commerce, where prison wages of a few cents per hour could too easily undercut private sector competition. It is hard for me to understand why the sale of services should be treated any differently than the sale of products.

The bill that we are introducing today would address these issues by making it absolutely clear that FPI no longer has a mandatory source status, by reaffirming the critical requirement that FPI compete for its contracts, and by carefully limiting the circumstances under which prison services may be sold into the private sector economy.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Craig Thomas, Chuck Grassley and Debbie Stabenow in introducing the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. Our bill is based on a straightforward premise: it is unfair for Federal Prison Industries to deny businesses in the private sector an opportunity to compete for sales to their own government.

We have made immeasurable progress on this issue since I first introduced a similar bill ten years ago. It may seem incredible, but at that time, Federal Prison Industries (FPI) could bar private sector companies from competing for a federal contract. Under the law establishing Federal Prison Industries, if Federal Prison Industries said that it wanted a contract, it would get that contract, regardless whether a company in the private sector could provide the product better, cheaper, or faster.

Four years ago, the Senate took a giant step toward addressing this inequity when we voted 74-24 to end Federal Prison Industries' monopoly on Department of Defense contracts. Not only was that provision enacted into law, we were able to strengthen it with a second provision in last year's defense bill. Last year, we took another important step, enacting an appropriations provision which extends the DOD rules to other Federal agencies. This means that, for the first time, private sector companies should be able to compete against for contracts awarded by all Federal agencies.

Despite this progress, work remains to be done. We have heard reports from federal procurement officials and from small businesses that FPI continues to claim that it retains the mandatory source status that protected it from competition for so long. This kind of misleading statement may undermine the right to compete that we have fought so hard for so long to establish.

In addition, FPI continues to sell its services into interstate commerce on an unlimited basis. I am concerned that the sale of prison labor into commerce could have the effect of undermining companies and work forces that are already in a weakened position as a result of foreign competition. We have long taken the position as a nation that prison-made goods should not be sold into commerce, where prison wages of a few cents per hour could too easily undercut private sector competition. It is hard for me to understand why the sale of services should be treated any differently than the sale of products.

The bill that we are introducing today would address these issues by making it absolutely clear that FPI no longer has a mandatory source status, by reaffirming the critical requirement that FPI compete for its contracts, and by carefully limiting the circumstances under which prison services may be sold into the private sector economy.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to bring an editorial from Monday's edition of the New York Times to the attention of my colleagues. The editorial, titled ``Guns for Terrorists,'' is a logical commentary on several potentially dangerous shortfalls in our Nation's gun safety laws that not only potentially allow individuals on terrorist watch lists to buy guns but also require that records related to the sale be destroyed within 24 hours of the purchase.

Under current law, individuals included on Federal terrorist watch lists are not automatically prohibited from purchasing firearms. A report released by the General Accountability Office on March 8, 2005, found that from February 3, 2004, through June 30, 2004, a total of 44 attempts to purchase firearms were made by individuals designated by the Federal Government as known or suspected terrorists. In 35 cases, the transactions were authorized to proceed because federal authorities were unable to find any information in the national instant criminal background check system, NICS, that would prohibit the individual from lawfully receiving or possessing firearms. Current law also requires that records, even in these cases, where known or suspected terrorists successfully purchase firearms, be destroyed within 24 hours.

Learning about a suspected terrorist's purchase of a firearm could potentially be critical to counterterrorism investigators working to prevent a terrorist attack. Common sense tells us that the automatic destruction of documents related to the successful purchase of firearms by individuals on terrorist watch lists would significantly hamper these investigations. I have cosponsored the Terrorist Apprehension Record Retention Act. The legislation would require that in cases where a known or suspected terrorist successfully purchased a firearm, records pertaining to the transaction be retained for 10 years. The bill also requires that all NICS information be shared with appropriate Federal and State counterterrorism officials anytime an individual on a terrorist watch list attempts to buy a firearm.

We should be working to pass legislation to close loopholes that allow potential terrorists to buy dangerous weapons like the AK-47 assault rifle, the .50 caliber sniper rifle, and the

Five-Seven armor-piercing handgun. We should be working to provide our law enforcement officials with the tools they need to protect our families and communities.

I ask unanimous consent that the April 4, 2005 New York Times editorial titled ``Guns for Terrorists'' be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, it is with deep sadness that I learned this past week of the passing of a dear friend and former colleague, Senator Howell Heflin.

My thoughts and prayers today and those of my wife, Barbara, are with his loving wife, Elizabeth Ann ``Mike'', and his family.

Everyone thought of Howell as ``Judge'' Heflin, even as he served in the Senate, because he forever looked and acted the part of the ``country judge''. He came to the Senate, as I did, in the class of 1978. Howell was then already a distinguished jurist, having served 6 years as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He went on to build a solid reputation and to play an important role in the life of the Senate over the next 18 years.

Howell Heflin, a man of not only intellect, but warmth and good- humor, tackled some of the more thankless tasks in the Senate, including the arcane issues involving bankruptcy and administrative practice, and serving as the chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee in particularly turbulent times. He could always be counted on to approach difficult issues with careful thoughtful analysis, and to apply his balanced judgement objectively. For this reason, and others, Howell Heflin was respected on both sides of the aisle. In fact, he frequently served as a bridge between Democrats and Republicans in a way sorely needed in today's Senate. He was a true moderate, moderate in politics and by temperament. His demeanor, his objectivity, as well as his expertise, diligence and attention to the facts, have been missed and are among the very elements most needed now in this Chamber if we are to hope to remain the world's most deliberative body.

Senator Heflin served the people of Alabama, proudly. He served our nation with genuine dignity. And, today, as I look back on the life and career of Howell Heflin, I reflect on how proud I am of having had the opportunity to serve with this very special man, and to call him my friend.