Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The two Senators will be recognized in that order?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to particularly commend the Senator from North Dakota for sections 1521 and 1522 of his amendment which address the issue of competition in contracting. This is an issue that I have been concerned about since I worked with Senator Bill Cohen to enact the Competition in Contracting Act in 1984. Sections 1521 and 1522 in Senator Dorgan's amendment build on the principle that the Federal Government, taxpayers, and Government contractors all benefit from the competitive award of Federal contracts. I was pleased to work with Senator Dorgan and his staff in drafting these particular provisions of his amendment. Over the last 10 years, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Defense Inspector General, and others have documented numerous shortcomings in the application of competition rules by Federal agencies. These problems have included, one, numerous unjustified sole-source awards under Government-wide, multiple-award contracts. Some studies have indicated that more than 50 percent of such awards have been made on a sole-source basis. Second, the award of huge what are called indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, or IDIQ, contracts--some of them in the billions of dollars--go to individuals, individual contractors, rather than multiple contractors. These single awards--these indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contracts--basically give a single contractor the right to sole-source award of innumerable highly lucrative projects. Such contracts include the highly visible contracts awarded to Halliburton relative to Iraq. Sections 1521 and 1522 of the Dorgan amendment would address these problems by prohibiting, with limited waiver authority, the issuance of long-term, open-ended contracts, like Halliburton's LOGCAP contract, to a single company. Federal agencies would be required to issue such contracts to more than one company so that they could compete with each other for work, unless the agency makes a determination that it is not practical to do so and reports that determination to Congress. That section of the amendment would also extend to civilian agencies a legislative provision that we wrote 4 years ago to eliminate abusive sole-source awards and ensure competition when Department of Defense officials place work orders under multiple-award contracts, and we would authorize bid protests for task orders in excess of $500,000 under multiple-award contracts. So I commend our colleague from North Dakota for offering this important amendment. I support this amendment. I hope the Senate will adopt it and not table it because it includes many important reforms and changes in our contracting process to address some of the abuses that have been identified by the expert agencies that we actually utilize and hire to do these kinds of reviews. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first let me thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his wisdom in identifying an appropriate way--one of the many, but very appropriate ways--we can honor President Ford. Jerry Ford is a dear friend to Members of Congress and probably thousands of others. Regardless of party, he was someone who knew how to reach across the aisle. It was a matter of pride for him to reach Democrats as well as Republicans, to pull together in common causes. We are particularly proud of Jerry Ford in Michigan. He is a proud son of Michigan. He went to the University of Michigan. He represented a district in west Michigan for a long period of time in the Congress. His Presidential library and his Presidential museum are both in Michigan, and they are the objects of a great deal of reverence, not just for the people of Michigan but for people who visit Michigan as well. He came to be President at a time when we needed a healer, when we needed someone who would unify this Nation in a time of great turmoil. We were in the middle of the Watergate crisis and the Watergate crimes. It was fortuitus that it would be Jerry Ford who would become President when President Nixon resigned. Senator Warner has read from one line of Jerry Ford's remarks on taking the oath of office as President. I thought I would close by reading a few other lines because he captured the sentiment and the feel of our Nation at a very critical moment in our history. Jerry Ford started his remarks on taking his oath in August of 1974 by saying: The oath that I have taken is the same oath that was taken by George Washington and by every President under the Constitution. But I assume the Presidency under extraordinary circumstances never before experienced by Americans. This is an hour of history that troubles our minds and hurts our hearts. He went on to say: I have not sought this enormous responsibility, but I will not shirk it. . . . It is only fitting then that I should pledge to [all of the people] that I will be the President of all of the people. A little later in his remarks, in addressing the people of other nations, he said: I pledge an uninterrupted and sincere search for peace. America will remain strong and united, but its strength will remain dedicated to the safety and sanity of the entire family of man, as well as to our own precious freedom. And then he said: I believe that truth is the glue that holds government together, not only our Government but civilization itself. That bond, though strained, is unbroken at home and abroad. In all my public and private acts as your President, I expect to follow my instincts of openness and candor with full confidence that honesty is always the best policy in the end. And then he added, as Senator Warner has quoted: My fellow Americans, our long, national nightmare is over. The only other line I would choose to quote from his remarks is the following. It speaks so much of Jerry Ford and what he stood for and the reason he is held in such affection and esteem by all of our people, particularly by the people of Michigan. As we bind up the internal wounds of Watergate, more painful and poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us restore the golden rule to our political process, and let brotherly love purge our hearts of suspicion and of hate. So spoke Jerry Ford, and that is the way he lived his life. I am delighted that Senator Warner has taken the lead, as he has, to so identify this new class of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. I thank him again for his graciousness, his sensitivity, and his wisdom in identifying this specific class of aircraft carriers to be named after a truly great man and wonderful son of Michigan, Jerry Ford.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. We asked Senator Dorgan to come over and take over that spot.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Jonathan Epstein, a legislative fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be given floor privileges during the pendency of S. 2766 and any votes thereon.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. The pending amendment, Mr. President, as I understand it, is the amendment of Senator Warner on behalf of Senator Frist, Senator Reid, and myself.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Pursuant to that understanding, then, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Warner amendment be temporarily laid aside so I can offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4205, an amendment on behalf of Senator Lautenberg, and ask for its immediate consideration following the disposition of the Warner bipartisan amendment.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement which we adopted last night, it is my recollection that on the Democratic side we were going to be offering an amendment immediately following the pending Warner amendment. I stand corrected. Apparently there was an understanding on this, between myself and Senator Warner, which was not incorporated.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the President's budget proposes that the copays for prescriptions under the TRICARE Prescription Benefit Program be increased for our troops and their families and for retirees, and that the increase in the copays be, on the generic prescriptions, from $3 to $5; on brand-name prescriptions from $9 to $15. The amendment that Senator Lautenberg is offering and that I very much support would freeze the current copays in place until December 31, 2007. This is not the time, in the middle of a war, to be raising copays on our military personnel and their families. They should not have to worry about whether their families are going to be able to afford to buy prescription drugs. The copays that currently exist are not statutory, so the Department of Defense does not need legislative authority to increase them. They have their authority. The problem is that our bill is silent on this subject so they would be increasing the copay because there is no prohibition in our bill on their doing so. About 43 percent of the prescriptions filled through the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program are filled in retail pharmacies. The increase which the administration proposes would significantly increase beneficiary cost shares for medical care. Of course, the fear is not only that it would be additional money coming out of the pockets of our troops and their families, but also this increase would discourage beneficiaries from using their military health care benefit. The Department of Defense has estimated that the copayments would create additional revenue of $81 million in fiscal year 2007. They also believe beneficiaries would not use their military pharmacy benefits to the same extent and that would mean that there would be savings to the Government of $54 million and there would also be some savings if beneficiaries switch to mail order rather than retail pharmacies. I don't think we ought to be assuming savings or counting on savings coming out of the pockets of our troops and their families while we are at war. I think it is a totally inappropriate time to do so, so I support the Lautenberg amendment. For a soldier in combat, under these circumstances, the circumstances that exist these days, to have a worry that a spouse or children would not get needed prescriptions because of the administration's desire to save some money is simply unconscionable. The Senate bill directs a Comptroller General study of the DOD pharmacy benefit program to examine the cost and copayments structure of the program. We clearly ought to await that before we allow these copays to be increased as the administration budget proposes. I see my dear friend and colleague, Senator Warner, our chairman, on the floor now. We had an understanding that we would lay down this amendment this morning, that I would lay it down on behalf of Senator Lautenberg and speak briefly in support of it, and that after the disposition of the chairman's amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment, we would then come back to the Lautenberg amendment and at that point there would be additional debate--Senator Lautenberg would speak in support of his amendment and any others who wish to debate it would have an opportunity at that time. We thought, given our understanding last night, we would lay this amendment down at this time. I have just done so.

Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate that. That is fine with us. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be equally divided.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in first thanking the men and women of our military services who were responsible for the myriad of actions that were taken years ago that led to the ultimate elimination of such a vicious terrorist as Zarqawi. We also thank the men and women of our military services who are serving multiple tours of duty in arduous and dangerous locations with great personal sacrifice and great disruption in their lives and those of their family members. The killing of Zarqawi is very welcome news. It is not the panacea for addressing the extreme levels of violence in Iraq or for solving the large number of vexing issues--and the President has acknowledged as much-- but it is an important step and one that will reduce the influence of al-Qaida in Iraq. He was responsible for a number of spectacular terrorist attacks that produced a large number of casualties and grizzly murders of kidnap victims. Zarqawi, while not the dominant part of the insurgency but a part of it, needed to be attacked and needed to be addressed. The insurgency, however, primarily is made up of disaffected Iraqi Sunnis. Zarqawi played a role in stirring up ethnic conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Much of the violence relating to that conflict is traced to the reaction of Shiite militias to the Sunni insurgency and to, of course, their reaction to the Shiite militias. Our security forces need to confront those militias and the other armed groups. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there needs to be a political solution in addition to the military force which is present. Indeed, probably a more important event than the killing of Zarqawi was the selection by the Prime Minister and the ratification by the Iraqi Council of Representatives of the key ministries, Defense and Interior, and the National Security Adviser. Those vacancies lasted too long. Their filling, hopefully with people who have the support of all the Iraqi people who want Iraq to become a nation, is even a more important step than the killing of Zarqawi, as important as that step is. As we all support--hopefully unanimously--this bipartisan amendment which is before us, we also need to recognize that there is critical work that remains to be done, and while this is a step toward, hopefully, a direction of Iraqi nationhood, most of the steps remain to be taken. While Senator Durbin is on the floor, I ask unanimous consent that immediately after the disposition of the next amendment of Senator Warner, Senator Durbin then be recognized, as we are alternating amendments, by my understanding.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. We look forward to that amendment. I am sure there will be a lot of support for that operation on both sides of the aisle. We haven't seen the language, but I am sure we will support it.

Mr. LEVIN. I am pleased, once again, to join the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, in bringing the National Defense Authorization Act to the Senate floor. This bipartisan bill was favorably reported by unanimous vote of the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 4, 2006, as our distinguished Presiding Officer is well aware, since he had an important role bringing this bill to the floor. This is the sixth Defense authorization bill that Senator Warner has brought to the Senate floor as chairman of our committee. Under the 6- year term limitation imposed on committee chairmen under the Republican Conference, it will also be his last. Senator Warner served this country as an enlisted man in the Navy in World War II, as an officer in the Marine Corps in the Korean war, and as Secretary of the Navy during the Vietnam war. He has continued that service as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee since his election to the Senate in 1978. As Senator Warner has pointed out on many occasions, he and I came to the Senate together. We have now served side by side on the Senate Armed Services Committee for more than 27 years. As chairman of our committee, Senator Warner is unfailingly patient, courteous, and thoughtful. He has always been willing to listen. He has always tried to work out constructive solutions to even the most difficult problems. And when he is unable to work out those solutions, he is always up front and is always protecting the opposition's procedural rights. Senator Warner has consistently shown his dedication to providing the resources that are needed for our national defense and meeting the needs of our men and women in uniform. Senator Warner has served in the finest tradition of our committee, a tradition of bipartisan dedication to the national defense established by previous giants such as Richard Russell, John Stennis, and Sam Nunn, and we thank him for it. He is now and will, hopefully for a long time, be on that list of giants--but after this year and after this bill, not as chairman of our committee. Every Senator in this body trusts John Warner. Perhaps this is the highest of all the tributes that one can pay. The unanimous vote of the committee on the bill we bring before the Senate today is a fitting statement about Senator Warner's chairmanship. This bill contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. LEVIN. Again, we all thank the Senator. His service on the committee is not over, and his service as chairman is not over. We still have a long way to go, through the floor of the Senate and through conference, but we have no doubt about the outcome of either the floor debate or the conference. He will pull this bill through again, as he invariably has. This bill contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. It will provide needed support and assistance to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, and make the investments that we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in compensation and in quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships that are imposed by continuing military operations. For example, the bill contains provisions that would prohibit increases proposed by the administration in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees and require the Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive analysis of Department of Defense health care costs and savings proposals. The bill rejects cuts proposed by the administration for the National Guard budget, ensuring that National Guard end strength will be fully funded. The bill would repeal provisions of the Survivor Benefit Plan that reduces military retirement payments by amounts received for dependency and indemnity compensation, and the bill would require an audit of pay accounts of wounded soldiers and actions to correct erroneous payments, including a toll-free hotline for military personnel and next-of-kin who are experiencing pay problems. The bill also includes important funding authorities needed for our continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and our efforts to secure our Nation against terrorism. For example, the bill contains provisions that would authorize over $2 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to facilitate the rapid development of new technology and tactics and the rapid redeployment of equipment to counter the IED threat. The bill authorizes an additional $950.5 million for force protection equipment including $559.8 million for up-armored High Mobility Multi- purpose wheeled vehicles and $100.0 million for counter-IED engineer vehicles: The bill provides $115.2 million over the President's budget request for combating terrorism and enhancing domestic preparedness: The bill authorizes $50.0 billion supplemental to cover the cost of ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism in fiscal year 2007, and it provides expanded authorities for regional combatant commanders to train and equip foreign military forces, provide logistics support, supplies and services to allies and coalition partners, and lease or lend equipment for personnel protection and survivability to foreign forces participating in combined military operations with U.S. forces. I am pleased that the bill contains a provision requiring that Congress be provided a coordinated U.S. Government legal opinion on whether certain specified interrogation techniques would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and other applicable provisions of law. This provision is necessary because the administration has refused to provide Congress existing legal opinions on the conduct of interrogations and detainee operations and failed to live up to its responsibility to provide clear guidance to our troops in the field on these issues. Finally, the bill contains a number of provisions that will help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. For example, the bill contains provisions that would improve the management of major defense acquisition programs by increasing the authority and responsibility of program managers and linking the payment of award and incentive fees directly to program outcomes; help identify and address problems with major information technology programs by establishing cost, schedule and performance requirements similar to those applicable to the acquisition of major weapon systems; ensure that the public receive accurate information on the department's budget requirements by prohibiting the ``parking'' of funds in one budget account when the funds are intended for a different purpose; continue the committee's oversight of interagency contracting by extending the current series of joint DOD inspector general audits to include interagency contracts managed by the National Institutes of Health and the Veterans' Administration; and address abusive contracting practices by requiring the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations prohibiting excessive pass-through fees charged on contracts and subcontracts: For example, recent press articles have described a process in which work was passed down from the Army Corps of Engineers to a prime contractor, then to a subcontractor, then to another subcontractor-- with each company charging the government for profit and overhead before finally reaching the company that would actually do the work. In one such case, the Army Corps reportedly paid a prime contractor $1.75 per square foot to nail plastic tarps onto damaged roofs in Louisiana. The prime contractor paid another company 75 cents per square foot to do the work; that subcontractor paid a third company 35 cents per square foot to do the work; and that subcontractor paid yet another company 10 cents per square foot to do the work. In other words, we paid the prime contractor $1.75 per square foot for their work. He used a sub, who used a sub, who used a sub, who ended up paying the people who actually did the work 10 cents per square foot to do the work that we and the taxpayers paid $1.75 per square foot to accomplish. In a second such case, the Army Corps reportedly paid prime contractors $28 to $30 per cubic yard to remove debris. The companies that actually performed the work were paid only $6 to $10 per cubic yard. A representative of one of the companies was quoted as saying: Every time it passes through another layer, $4 of $5 is taken off the top. These others are taking out money, and some of them aren't doing anything. We have many important issues to address as we consider this bill over the next few days. For example, I am sure that we will deal with amendments addressing the way forward for our forces in Iraq. My own view, consistent with the long-held advice of our senior military commanders, is that there will be no military solution to the violence in Iraq and no way to defeat the insurgency until a political solution is achieved and accepted by the Iraqis themselves. And we must find ways to press the Iraqis to make those political accommodations. The good news that we received about the death of Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, and perhaps the more important news that the Iraqi parliament had approved the nominees for ministers of defense, national security, and the interior will hopefully foster greater cooperation among the various Iraqi parties. The Iraqis must now turn to the difficult but critical task of making their constitution a unifying and inclusive document. The administration needs to be pressing the Iraqis to complete this essential task within the timeline which is provided by the constitution itself. Only the Iraqis can reach a political settlement that unifies their country. Among the amendments that we will deal with in the coming days is one I intend to offer to reduce funding provided in the bill for ballistic missile interceptors and related deployment sites for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense--GMD--program. The GMD system has yet to have a single successful intercept test, yet this bill would provide funding for the final 10 operational interceptors requested by the Department of Defense. The flight tests that have occurred to date have shown the program to be immature and developmental in the test failures and numerous problems remaining to be solved, The Department's proposal to complete the acquisition of operational missiles before these missiles have been successfully tested puts us at risk of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the deployment of a system that may not work. I look forward to debating these and other issues as we move forward with this bill over the next few days. As of today, more than 130,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are engaged in taking on an aggressive insurgency and helping the Iraqi security forces to prevent civil war in Iraq, almost 20,000 remain in harm's way in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands more are supporting the war effort through deployments thousands of miles from home. Our Armed Forces have also played a critical role in responding to the devastation left by Hurricane Katrina and other disasters both at home and overseas. Senate action on this bill will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools that they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service--and that is true regardless of one's position on the wisdom of our Iraq policy. I again congratulate our chairman, Senator Warner, for bringing forth this bill in a unanimous way, as he has and always does. I look forward to working with our colleagues to pass this important legislation as promptly as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I congratulate my good friend, Robert C. Byrd, on becoming the longest serving Senator in American history. Senator Byrd is an institution within this institution that we all dearly love. For more than 47 years in the Senate, he has served America and his beloved West Virginia with firm purpose, confident that his work is to do their work. He has done it extraordinarily well. Senator Byrd's place in history was assured long before this milestone. He is distinguished more by his love for the Senate than by the length of his service. Senator Byrd knows the history and rules of the Senate better than any of us serving today--perhaps better than anyone who has ever served this body. He has defended the traditions and prerogatives of the Senate as strongly as any Senator ever has. Senator Byrd reveres our Constitution, a copy of which he always carries in his pocket, and is as firmly committed to our Constitution as any American ever has been. To just give one example, I saw that commitment in our work together against the line-item veto, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law in 1996. In the floor consideration of that bill, Senator Byrd illuminated the debate, as he so often does, by reaching back into history. He quoted the 18th century English jurist, Sir William Blackstone, who wrote: In all tyrannical governments, the supreme magistery, or the right of both making and enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men. And wherever these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty. After the bill became law, despite that opposition, I joined Senator Byrd and Senator Moynihan in filing an amicus brief at the Supreme Court, arguing that the line-item veto was an unconstitutional surrender of legislative power to the executive branch. In June 1998, the Supreme Court agreed in a 6-to-3 decision. Senator Byrd came to the Senate floor, and he declared: This is a great day for the United States of America, a great day for the Constitution of the United States. Today we feel that the liberties of the American people have been assured. God save this honorable Court. Well, we are honored to have this giant in the Senate--a true living legend--among us and guiding us in our daily work. The determination with which Senator Byrd approaches his work in Washington is born of his devotion to the people of West Virginia. Through his arduous work, he has brought needed infrastructure to an area that has lacked for economic development. He has fought, first and foremost, for the working people and particularly the coal miners of West Virginia. Just last week--I guess the week before now--the Senate passed the mine safety bill that he championed along with his colleague, Senator Rockefeller. West Virginia has had no finer advocate in its history than Robert Byrd, a fact the State recognized when it selected him ``West Virginian of the 20th century.'' In addition to his service in the Senate, Senator Byrd has lived, and hopefully will continue to lead for many years, an amazing and an amazingly full life. He is a man of great abilities and many passions. He plays the fiddle, he reads the classics, he is a master orator, he has worked as a butcher and welder, he is a writer and historian, he has lived in a shack with no electricity, and now keeps the company of Presidents and of Kings. He has known true and deep love with his cherished wife Erma whose birthday they would have celebrated today. His life and his love for the Senate and for the Constitution is exceeded only by his love for Erma. When I was elected to the Senate in 1978, Robert Byrd was majority leader. The first vote I cast was on a Robert Byrd motion. And since that day, I have learned more about this institution from Robert Byrd than I have from anyone or from anywhere else. The greatest tribute we can pay to Robert Byrd is to stand firm for Senate procedures which have made the Senate the most notable place in the world of democratic institutions where the protection of minority rights to debate and to amend legislation are the most protected. There is no other place like the Senate in the world. It is here where the right to debate is given a privileged position, a protected position so that minority views can be aired fully and so that, hopefully, consensus can be arrived at rather than just simply adopted by prompt majority votes. So that is the tribute we can all pay to Robert Byrd: to defend this institution, to stand for its procedures, and to carry, as he does, at least in our hearts, the Constitution, as he carries the Constitution on his body. Congratulations to Senator Byrd on this historic milestone in his lifetime of service to our Nation and his now record length of service to the Senate of the United States.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Detroit Salt Mine, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them on reaching this important milestone. In 1906, the Detroit Salt and Manufacturing Company began constructing the Detroit Salt Mine. The first few years were tumultuous, as the construction itself was so challenging and costly that the company went bankrupt before it began to mine salt. Fortunately, the company quickly rebounded and completed its first mining shaft in 1910. The mine has passed through many hands over the years but is currently operated by the Detroit Salt Company, which has owned it since 1997. Today, the Detroit Salt Company solely produces highway deicing salt, the salt that is used to melt the ice that covers roadways during the winter. It provides this salt not only for Michigan roadways but for other roads throughout the Midwest. Without this valuable product, our roadways would be repeatedly crippled during the winter months, causing massive and regular shutdowns of schools and businesses. It is also important to recognize the Detroit Salt Company's efforts to keep its mine safe for its many workers. The Mine Health and Safety Administration has recognized the Detroit Salt Company for its excellent safety standards with the Sentinel of Safety Award for 3 of the last 6 years. Additionally, the company is part of the Detroit Local Emergency Planning Committee, taking an active role in keeping not only its employees, but also the citizens of its community safe and secure. I know my colleagues join me in recognizing the historical significance of the Detroit Salt Mine and congratulate all of those who have contributed to its success.