Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to The Islamic Center of America, one of the first Islamic institutions in North America. On May 12, the Center will celebrate the completion of its new mosque complex in Dearborn, which will have the distinction of being the largest mosque in the United States. The festivities will continue with a grand banquet to be held on May 14. These events will bring together Muslims, as well as many others, from Michigan and around the country. The Islamic Center of America traces its origin to the 1940s when Muslim immigrants from Lebanon and Syria began settling in Detroit and thus sought to bring a religious leader from the Middle East to the Detroit area to serve their community. A young author and scholar, Imam Mohammed Jawas Chirri, was the choice, arriving from Lebanon in February 1949. When the newly-formed Islamic Center Foundation Society was established in 1954, Imam Chirri became its new leader and soon after they decided to build a new religious center. In his efforts to raise funds for the new center, Imam Chirri visited Egypt in 1959 and successfully secured support for the project. The Society purchased land owned by the Ford Motor Company located on Joy Road and Greenfield in Detroit. On September 20, 1963, the Islamic Center of America first opened its doors. The building consisted of a large domed prayer room, lecture hall, kitchen, offices, and two classrooms. Following the opening of the mosque, families of the Islamic Center began to move into the area. By 1967, the Center had already outgrown this space. Additional classrooms, an enlarged social hall, and a minaret were added to serve the growing membership. In 1997, Imam Hassan Al-Qazwini, his wife and their three children moved from California to Detroit to join The Islamic Center of America. Under his leadership and guidance, the Center has continued to flourish. Outgrowing the location on Joy Road, the Center began construction of a new religious center on Ford Road in Dearborn in 1999, near the Center's existing grade school, the Muslim American Youth Academy. The new mosque, which is located along a stretch of Ford Road that is home to several churches, including St. Sarkis Armenian Apostolic Church, St. Clement Ohridski Orthodox Church, Warrendale Community Church, St. Thomas Aquinas Roman Catholic Church, and Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, which is also home to People of the Book Arab Christian Church, will be the largest in the United States. At an estimated cost of between $8,000,000 and $10,000,000, the new mosque complex will accommodate 1,000 individuals at prayer time, and will house a large auditorium, social hall, and 14 additional rooms for the school. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating The Islamic Center of America on this significant achievement and in recognizing its many years of service to the Muslim American community in Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, two separate accidental shootings in Detroit on April 22 of this year left one 13-year-old boy dead and a 9- year-old boy critically wounded. These tragedies should remind us again that much more must be done to prevent access to guns by children. According to published reports, both of these shootings involved children playing with guns inside their own homes. In both cases, the guns accidentally discharged and shot the victim in the head. In reference to the accidental shooting of the 9-year-old boy, Lieutenant James Tolbert of the Detroit Police Department commented, ``This is an unfortunate and needless incident that would have been prevented if people would make sure that a weapon in the home is secure and out of reach.'' In addition, Lieutenant Tolbert suggested that similar shootings could be prevented through the use of trigger locks or the storage of ammunition separate from the gun. Recent research supports Lieutenant Tolbert's suggestions. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the application of responsible gun storage measures can significantly reduce the risk of unintentional shooting or suicide by minors using a gun. According to the study, when ammunition in the home is locked up, the risk of such injuries is reduced by 61 percent. Simply storing ammunition separately from the gun reduces such occurrences by more than 50 percent. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, teenagers and children are involved in more than 10,000 accidental shootings in which close to 800 people die each year. Reducing the number of accidental shootings involving children and teenagers requires that commonsense gun storage measures be adopted. During the 108th Congress, I joined with 69 of my colleagues in voting for Senator Boxer's trigger lock amendment. Senator Boxer's amendment would have required that all handguns sold by a dealer come with a child safety device, such as a lock, a lock box, or technology built into the gun itself that would increase the security of the weapon while in storage. Although the underlying gun industry immunity bill to which this amendment was attached was later defeated, the support for Senator Boxer's proposal is clear. Requiring that guns be stored in a responsible manner could have prevented many of the accidental shootings we have seen in Detroit and around the country. I am hopeful that Congress will work to limit children's access to guns so that fewer families will have to endure the loss of their child because of a preventable accident.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this budget reflects the wrong priorities for America. It is way out of touch with working families in Michigan and across the United States. It does not reflect their needs and goals, such as improved education and increased access to health care, but it burdens them with increasing debt. At the same time, this budget continues to cut taxes mainly for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of our nation's fiscal health. Fundamentally, this budget continues this administration's policies that have led to the deepest deficit and debt in American history. For that reason alone it should be defeated. This administration's policies have taken us from record surpluses to record deficits. The deficit for this year alone is $427 billion. This budget would increase the deficit next year. Continued deficits will mean rising long-term interest rates and slower economic growth. Continued deficits will make it more expensive to buy a house, pay for college, or pay off credit card debt. Alan Greenspan recently warned that, if left unchecked, deficits ``would cause the economy to stagnate or worse.'' Continued deficits will also mean the continued use of the Social Security trust fund to cover some of the funding shortfall. The President's tax cuts are a major cause of the deficits, yet this resolution would add $70 billion more in tax breaks. Three-quarters of those tax breaks are for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans, who are earning more than $200,000 a year. Not only is this budget fiscally reckless, it is dishonest. Republicans claim the budget would cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years, but they simply leave out several major expenses, including the essential cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the cost of the personnel added to the Army and Marines; and the cost of reforming the Alternative Minimum Tax which otherwise would increase the burden on middle income families. To conceal further the damage it does to the Nation's fiscal outlook, this budget uses 5-year projections instead of the customary 10-year numbers. Hidden just beyond the 5-year budget window is the exploding cost of the tax cuts and their growing effect on the deficit. To return to the path of fiscal discipline, we need to reinstate ``pay-as-you-go'' rules that would require both entitlement spending increases and tax cuts to be fully paid for or face a 60-vote point of order in the Senate. The ``pay-as-you-go'' rules were successful in the 1990s and would be successful again in restraining the deficit without unduly harming critical public services. The majority has opposed reinstating these rules because they don't want to be forced to pay for new tax cuts. The budget plan that is before the Congress is a huge missed opportunity. We could be debating a budget today that addresses our Nation's most pressing problems, such as the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, inadequate education, and the 45 million Americans without health insurance. Instead, this budget makes some problems worse. In the Senate-passed budget resolution, we were able to defeat proposed cuts to Medicaid, and cuts to the health care program for millions of children, pregnant women, elderly and the disabled. However, this conference report still proposes $10 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next 5 years. It is unconscionable for this administration and this Congress to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans by cutting health care for the most vulnerable Americans. This budget also weakens environmental protection by providing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have a responsibility to promote a balanced energy plan that invests in America's future and protects our environment, not one that damages our protected lands. In summary, this budget gives massive and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts mainly to the wealthiest Americans while failing to address our real needs. Instead of investing in America, this budget indebts America for years to come. These are the wrong priorities for America, and I cannot support this budget.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on Friday, April 22, a true American hero was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. Joe Beyrle of Muskegon, MI, was a paratrooper in the 101st Division on D-Day in World War II. His capture by the Germans and his heroic escape to fight with the Russian Army on the Eastern Front, making him the only American soldier to fight with both the United States and Russian armies against Nazi Germany, have been chronicled in a wonderful book by retired Army Colonel Thomas Taylor called The Simple Sounds of Freedom. It was my privilege to speak at the burial ceremony for Joe Beyrle. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, as in previous years, I would like to honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide. This year marks the 90th anniversary of the brutal campaign to eliminate Armenians from the Turkish Ottoman Empire. April 24 was chosen as the day of remembrance because on that date in 1915, more than 5,000 Armenians including civic leaders, intellectuals, writers, priests, scientists, and doctors were systematically rounded up and murdered. The systematic and intentional killing continued until 1923, leaving nearly 1.5 million Armenians dead. There are those who attempt to deny that this atrocity ever occurred. But there is no denying the overwhelming historical record and eyewitness accounts that documented the appalling events of 1915-23, which occurred during the time of the Ottoman Empire. The United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, stated at the time that ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact . . . I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this.'' The annual remembrance of the Armenian genocide is not a condemnation of our ally, the present day Republic of Turkey. But, our mutual interest with our NATO partner and our friendship with, and respect for, the Turkish people are not reasons to ignore historical fact. Nobel Laureate writer Elie Wiesel has said that the denial of genocide constitutes a ``double killing'' for it seeks to rewrite history by absolving the perpetrators of violence while ignoring the suffering of the victims. During my time in the Senate, I have spoken about the Armenian Genocide many times. It is important that we take time to remember and honor the victims, and pay respect to the survivors who are still with us. In addition, we must reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that history is not repeated. This is the highest tribute we can pay to the victims of any genocide. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to honor the memory of the 1.5 million Armenian genocide victims by recognizing that there are still those in the world who will stop at nothing to perpetuate campaigns of hate, intolerance, and unthinkable violence. We must do all we can to stop atrocities, like those in the Darfur region of Sudan, from occurring as well as continue to provide adequate recovery aid to survivors. In doing so, we will truly honor the memory of genocide victims and fulfill our responsibilities as a world leader.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to discuss the nomination of John Negroponte to be the first Director of National Intelligence. This is a new position created by Congress as a key element of intelligence reform after the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and after the many failures we saw concerning intelligence on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. I want to discuss one particular aspect of the problems we had with the intelligence community, and how I hope Ambassador Negroponte will improve upon that situation. In the course of conducting oversight of the executive branch, Congress requires information and documents produced by the executive branch, including from the intelligence community. This is especially true in cases where Congress, or members of Congress, are conducting oversight for which they are responsible. Unfortunately, it has been disturbingly difficult to obtain information and documents from this administration on a number of serious issues and from a number of agencies, including from the intelligence community, as well as from the Defense and Justice Departments. The only conclusion I can draw from my experience in seeking information and documents from this administration as part of my oversight responsibilities is that too often they have not cooperated fully or appropriately. Let me turn to some specific examples. Each year, the Armed Services Committee holds a hearing with the senior leaders of the intelligence community on worldwide threats. After the hearings, members write questions for the record, and the answers are made part of the official hearing record. Last year, on March 9, 2004, the Armed Services Committee held its annual worldwide threat hearing with the Director of Central Intelligence or DCI, George Tenet, and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Admiral Lowell Jacoby. But the CIA did not answer all the questions for the record until one year later, after I brought this delay to the attention of the new DCI, Porter Goss. In June 2003, as the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I initiated a minority staff inquiry into the pre-war intelligence on Iraq, and the use of that intelligence by the administration. In order to conduct this inquiry, it was necessary to request many documents from the intelligence community, as well as from the Defense Department. Although the intelligence community provided some documents, they stonewalled other requests. For example, on April 9, 2004, I wrote to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, requesting the declassification of three sets of briefing charts produced by the Office of Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith concerning the Iraq- al Qaeda relationship. The charts contained intelligence that only the intelligence community could declassify. I knew that one slide, which had been declassified previously at my request, was highly critical of the intelligence community's assessment of the Iraq-al Qaeda issue, and that it had been shown to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and later to the staffs of the Office of the Vice President and the National Security Council, but that it had not been shown to DCI Tenet when he was briefed. On July 6th, I received a letter from Stanley Moskowitz, the Director of Congressional Affairs at the CIA. His letter said that in response to my April 9 request, the ``declassification review of the charts is underway and we hope to have an answer to you shortly. We apologize for the delay.'' However, although his staff told my staff that they were working on the request, and later that they had completed the review, the documents were not forthcoming, nor was an explanation for the delay. I finally received the documents earlier this month, after the current Director of Central Intelligence, Porter Goss, provided them. In another example, on April 29, 2004, I requested the declassification of specific portions of three finished intelligence reports from the CIA concerning the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I requested that they respond by May 10th, but they did not reply for 2 months. In that same July 6th letter from Stanley Moskowitz, it said that, in response to my April 29 request, ``the declassification review is underway and we hope to have an answer to you shortly.'' However, the CIA did not provide an answer ``shortly.'' It did not provide any answer until after Director Tenet had left the CIA, and I had brought the situation to the attention of the new management team. The declassified materials were finally provided on April 6, 2005, nearly a year after the request. I have had similar problems with obtaining documents from the Department of Defense. I made a request for documents on November 25, 2003, and I am still awaiting documents from that request. In that case, the Defense Department said it was withholding some of the documents to determine whether they were covered by executive privilege. It did so until late March, when it finally provided some of the documents, 16 months after my original request. I would note that it is unclear what possible executive privilege concern could exist for these documents, some of which were unclassified talking points to be used by Pentagon officials. In the same case, the Defense Department originally told me they were withholding some documents containing intelligence information that was ``Originator Controlled,'' also known as ORCON. The Department promised me that they would provide any documents cleared for release by the CIA. But instead of doing so, they simply swept all the CIA-cleared documents into their executive privilege review. The new leadership of the CIA and the Intelligence Community, Porter Goss, is adopting a more responsive and responsible attitude toward congressional requests for information and documents than did his predecessor. After I brought these delays to his attention at a hearing in March, he said he would look into the matter and ensure that the information was provided. And he did what he promised. On April 6th, he wrote me a letter as a follow-up to providing me the materials that had been delayed so long. I would like to quote from the last paragraph of his letter: You should have received answers to these requests months ago. There is no excuse for such delays. I have conveyed to my staff that this is not how the Agency will treat requests. That is the right approach to take. After all the frustrating delays and stonewalling, it is a welcome breath of fresh air. And I hope the window stays open for the whole Intelligence Community. This brings me back to the nomination of Ambassador Negroponte to be the new leader of the Intelligence Community. At his nomination hearing before the Intelligence Committee, I asked him about this problem of stonewalling, ignoring, or delaying on requests for information and documents. I asked him if he would ensure that the intelligence community provides timely and responsive answers to such requests, and he basically said he would look into the situation. Frankly, I was hoping he would have a more robust and positive answer, and that he would commit to taking steps, if confirmed, to ensure that the intelligence community is fully responsive in a timely manner to congressional requests for information and documents. However, I am hopeful that when Ambassador Negroponte does look into the matter, he will be more responsive, in light of the law we just passed. He has a responsibility to the Nation, to the Congress, and to the people--not just to the President. I have some of the correspondence outlining the problems I have described, and I would ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, combating violent crime, especially gun crime, requires that our law enforcement agencies are adequately staffed and equipped. I have been a strong supporter of the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program. The COPS Program has been critical to our Nation's law enforcement community since its creation in 1994, and I am pleased to join Senator Biden as a cosponsor of the COPS Reauthorization Act. The COPS Program was designed to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in hiring additional police officers to reduce crime through the use of community policing. In Michigan alone, 514 local and State law enforcement agencies have received more than $220 million in grants through the COPS Program since its creation. These grants have improved the safety of communities by putting more than 3,300 law enforcement officers on Michigan streets and by supporting other important programs. Nationwide, the COPS Program has awarded more than $11 billion in grants, resulting in the hiring of 118,000 additional police officers. In my home State, the Detroit Police Department, DPD, used a COPS grant to hire additional officers that were needed to implement a 5- year community policing plan. Prior to the COPS grant award, the DPD lacked sufficient personnel to effectively cover high crime areas. The community policing plan placed teams of officers in neighborhoods to combat rising crime rates and work with residents to develop crime reduction strategies. The plan resulted in a drop in the number of reported violent crimes as well as improved police-community relations. The success of the Detroit Police Department illustrates the important role that COPS grants play in the safety of communities around the country. Unfortunately, authorization for the COPS Program was permitted to expire at the end of fiscal year 2000. Although the program has survived through the annual appropriations process, it has received significant funding cuts. In fact, the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act included only $606 million for the COPS Program, $142 million below the amount appropriated in 2004. In addition, President Bush's fiscal year 2006 budget would completely eliminate the COPS hiring grants. Despite the important positive impact of the COPS Program in Detroit and across the country, the President justified his cuts by calling the program ``nonperforming'' and not having ``a record of demonstrating results.'' Our State and local law enforcement agencies know better and we should listen to them. The COPS Reauthorization Act would continue the COPS Program for another 6 years at a funding level of $1.15 billion per year. This funding would allow State and local governments to hire an additional 50,000 police officers over the next 6 years. In addition, the bill would modernize the COPS Program by authorizing $350 million in law enforcement technology grants to assist police departments in acquiring new technologies for the analysis of crime data and the examination of DNA evidence, among other uses. The COPS Reauthorization Act would also build upon the accomplishments of the original COPS Program by authorizing $200 million in community prosecutor grants. These grants would be used to hire community prosecutors trained to work at the local and neighborhood level to prevent crime and improve relations with residents. At a time when we are asking more of our police departments than ever before, I believe we should be devoting more resources to the COPS Program, not less. The increased threat of terrorism as well as the continuing epidemic of gun violence underscores the need for more resources for our law enforcement agencies. Recognizing this, we must build upon the past success of the COPS Program and continue to work to provide police departments with the tools and resources they need to help keep our families and communities safe.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. 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.

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. 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.

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. 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.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. 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.