Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak therein for 5 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today to draw attention to an event that is going on across the Atlantic Ocean and how it impacts thousands of good-paying family-wage jobs right here in the United States.

As some of my colleagues know, the Paris Air Show kicked off this week. The air show showcases many impressive displays of aviation, technology, and innovation.

But there is something else that is going to be on display at this year's air show: the fruits of some 30-plus years of direct cash advances and illegal subsidies to the European aerospace company Airbus.

For more than three decades now, the European governments that created Airbus to specifically compete with the United States have aggressively funded, protected, and promoted their venture.

Since 1969, the European governments of France, Germany, Spain, and the UK have supported--the governments have supported--Airbus's commercial aircraft development with over $15 billion in launch aid. Those are high-risk loans at no- or low-interest, with repayment contingent on the commercial success of the aircraft.

According to the USTR, the amount of launch aid Airbus has received during the lifetime of that company--if it was repaid on commercial terms--is well over $100 billion.

Such massive, market-distorting subsidies to a private company are today allowing Airbus to offer incentives for airlines to buy their planes. Airbus is a mature company, with more than half of the market for large commercial aircraft. But Europe is still treating it as a company with kid gloves.

In fact, last week, Bloomberg News reported that Airbus is seeking approximately $5 billion in launch aid from the governments of France, Germany, Spain, and the UK to now fund the development of the Airbus A350. Reports indicate that the deal could be completed within the month.

If we want to keep a strong aerospace industry in America, we cannot let that happen. Every time European governments underwrite Airbus with subsidies, our American workers get pink slips.

If we want to lead the world in commercial aerospace, our message to Europe has to be strong and clear: No more illegal subsidies to prop up Airbus. And Airbus has to compete in the marketplace just like everybody else.

I am deeply troubled that Airbus is considering pursuing now additional illegal, trade-distorting subsidies that, in effect, have caused adverse effects on the American aerospace industry at

the same time the European Union is being sued in the World Trade Organization for those such practices.

That is why I am writing to Ambassador John Bruton urging the EU to show it is serious about pursuing fair trade practices with the United States by ending any discussion or movement forward on those subsidies.

The message sent by the U.S. Government is very clear.

On April 11, 2005, this Senate unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 25. That resolution called for European governments to reject launch aid for the A350.

Launch aid for the A350 or any other form of preferential financing for Airbus is unacceptable. We will not tolerate another round of subsidies that kill our American jobs.

In addition to the trade-distorting subsidies now being talked about in Paris, there are other distortions showing up in the news accounts as well.

Several weeks ago, I had the opportunity here in the Senate to question Air Force Secretary Michael Donley at our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I told him about my concerns for the future of our domestic industrial base and how I believe the future capabilities of both our domestic workforce and our military must be taken into account as we work to reform our procurement process.

Secretary Donley agreed that the Pentagon has an interest in ensuring that our industrial base issues are taken into account.

That response now has some of Airbus's top executives upset and once again distorting the facts. In newspaper reports over the weekend, the chief executive of EADS--which is Airbus's parent company--Louis Gallois, claims that if Airbus is selected to build the next generation of military refueling tankers, they would create more jobs than competition for the U.S. aerospace industry.

That is pretty hard to swallow. In fact, a year ago, in June 2008, an independent, nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute study concluded that the now-overturned decision to award the tanker contract to Airbus would have actually cost the United States 14,000 jobs.

The truth is, Airbus does not even have a plant here in the United States and their well-documented plan is to build their tanker airplane in Europe and then ship sections over here to the United States to be assembled.

The Boeing tanker, however, would be built in Everett, WA, and military capabilities would be added at the company's defense plant in Wichita, KS.

Suppliers in States across America would be supported by that contract. A Boeing-made tanker is estimated to support and create twice as many American jobs as an Airbus plane.

But it is not just about jobs. This is about the future of America's domestic industrial strength. Our government depends on our highly skilled industries--our manufacturers, our engineers, our researchers-- and our development and science base to keep the U.S. military stocked with the best and most advanced tools and equipment available.

So whether it is our scientists who are designing the next generation of military satellites or our engineers who are improving our radar systems or our machinists who are assembling our planes, these industries and their workers are one of America's greatest strategic assets.

We ought to ask the question: What if they were not available anymore? What if we here made budgetary and policy decisions without taking into account the future needs of our domestic workforce?

That is not impossible. It is not unthinkable. It is actually happening. And it is time to have a real dialog here about the ramifications of these decisions before we lose our capability to provide our military with the tools and equipment they need. Because once our plants shut down and our skilled workers move to other fields, and once all the infrastructure we have here is gone, it cannot be rebuilt overnight.

As a Senator from Washington State, I represent five military bases and many of our military contractors and suppliers, and, believe me, I am keenly aware of the important relationship between our military and the producers who keep them protected with their latest technological advances.

I have also seen the ramifications of the Pentagon's decisions on communities and workers and families. As many of my colleagues know, I have been sounding the alarm about a declining domestic aerospace industry for years. The American aerospace industry has taken hits from the economic climate, but it is also being undermined by unfair trade practices and these illegal subsidies of the type that are now being talked about this week in France.

This isn't just about one company or one State or one industry; this is about our Nation's economic stability, it is about our skill base, and it is about our future military capability. We have watched as our domestic base has shrunk, as competition has disappeared, and as our military has looked overseas for the products we have the capability to produce from scratch--not just assemble but produce from scratch--here at home.

Last month, I worked with some of our colleagues in the Senate to include a provision in the Defense Acquisitions Reform Act that has now been signed by the President. My provision draws the attention of the Pentagon leadership to consider the effects of their decisions on our industrial base and its ability to meet our future national security objectives. These decisions should not be made in a vacuum without regard to the long-term capabilities of our industrial base and the workers who are its backbone.

Last weekend, EADS head Louis Gallois said:

We will see at the end of the day who is creating more

jobs. We are starting from scratch in Alabama. We have to

create an industrial base.

Well, America has a highly skilled aerospace industrial base. It has taken a very long time to build it. We have machinists today who have past experience and know-how down the ranks for over 50 years. We have engineers who know our mission and know the needs of our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines and they have a reputation for delivering for our U.S. military.

I believe we need to move forward with a fair and transparent rebid of the tanker contract. The comments and the actions coming out of France this week have been anything but. But, again, this isn't just about one contract; this is about our Nation's economic stability, it is about our military capability, and it is about ensuring that our workers are a consideration in the decisions we are making on major defense contracts.

It took us a long time to build our industrial base, and it is built on the best America has to offer: Our innovative spirit, our dedication to this country and, most importantly, our Nation's workers. We have to work to preserve it, and we need to stand against unfair and illegal trade practices such as the ones that are being talked about at the Paris Air Show this week.

The Presiding Officer and I both know we are in the middle of a recession. We are engaged in wars abroad. These are two separate but not unrelated challenges. We have the ability in America to provide our military with the equipment they need to defend our Nation and project our might worldwide. But I fear, unless we stand for our industrial base today, we stand to lose the backbone of our military might, some of our best-paying American jobs, and our economic strength in the future.

Now is the time to take this stand and stand for our military and for our workers. It is critical to preserving America's future strength.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this morning I rise to remind all of us of a promise our government has made to the American people. It is an unspoken trust that certain things in our lives and communities are taken care of, that we don't have to think much about because we trust our government to keep us safe.

I think most Americans turn on the tap each day and expect the water they drink to be safe, and they probably do not think a lot about it. We expect if there is an emergency we will be able to pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1 and someone will answer and send help to us.

That is exactly what the people who lived in Bellingham, WA, used to think about oil and gas pipelines, if they thought about them at all. But all of our senses of safety and innocence were shattered 10 years ago today when tragedy struck for three families, and an entire community came together to

grieve and to learn and eventually stand up and say: Never again.

June 10, 1999, was a quiet sunny day in Bellingham, WA. For a lot of the students there it was the last day of school for the year. That should have been how it remained--as a day when kids played and celebrated about the coming of summer. Unfortunately, due to a series of mistakes and neglectful actions, it is now remembered as a day of fear and loss that the community still grieves.

Ten years ago today, around 3:30 in the afternoon on the west coast, a gasoline pipeline that ran through Bellingham, underground and near Whatcom Falls Park, ruptured, releasing more than a quarter of a million gallons of gasoline into Whatcom Creek. That gas ignited, sending a huge fireball racing down the entire creek, destroying everything in its path for more than a mile. It created this huge plume of smoke that rose more than 20,000 feet into the air.

The photo behind me was taken just moments after that explosion. Minutes before this, it was just a quiet creek, and this is what it looked like. That dramatic explosion took the lives, tragically, of three young people. Stephen Tsiorvas and Wade King were playing along the banks of the creek when this tremendous fireball ran across the water and set everything around them ablaze. They were both badly injured, and Stephen threw Wade into the creek and jumped in himself to try to soothe their burns. The boys were burned over 90 percent of their bodies and both died the next day. They were both just 10 years old.

The same afternoon, the same time, 18-year-old Liam Wood, who had just graduated from high school 5 days earlier, was fly fishing along this creek. He was overcome by the fumes, lost consciousness, and drowned. Stephen, Wade, and Liam were innocent victims of a horrific accident. But it was an accident that could have been and should have been prevented.

Pipeline networks stretch across the entire country. They run under our homes, they run by our schools, and our offices. Most people do not even know they are there. In fact, former Bellingham Police Chief Don Pierce, who was on this scene that day back in 1999, was recently quoted as he said:

As I was standing there none of it made any sense because

creeks don't catch on fire. I don't think I knew that there

was a gas pipeline that ran under there.

The chief of police didn't know there was a gas pipeline underneath.

Nationwide, the Office of Pipeline Safety oversees more than 2.3 million miles of pipeline that transports hazardous liquids and natural gas under communities across the country. They perform a very important service, bringing oil and essential products to our homes and businesses.

Prior to this accident in Bellingham, WA, I rarely heard about them myself and, like most Americans, I just assumed they were safe. At first I thought the Bellingham explosion was a fluke, something that never happens. Then, when I started to investigate this issue, I was astonished by what I learned. It turned out that what happened in Bellingham that day was not an isolated occurrence. In fact, it was not even rare.

According to the Office of Pipeline Safety, from 1986 until the time of this accident in 1999, there had been more than 5,500 incidents resulting in 310 deaths and 1,500 injuries.

Not only had these accidents destroyed families, they had destroyed the environment. At that time, 6 million gallons of hazardous liquid were being released by these incidents every year--6 million gallons. That is like having an oil spill the size of the Exxon Valdez disaster every 2 years. The environmental damage was estimated to cost $1 billion.

In addition to this horrific loss that was sustained by these three Bellingham families, this explosion caused massive environmental damage. In fact, I had been scheduled to be at this exact site just a few weeks later to dedicate a great, newly restored, salmon spawning ground. When I went there and saw the damage after the explosion, I was shocked. That blast had destroyed all the plant and animal life in the creek, and a once very lush and diverse habitat had been burned to ashes.

Again, our community was not unique. At that time, on average, our Nation was suffering one pipeline accident every single day. While Bellingham may not have been unique in our tragedy, we were one of a kind in our response. Today, 10 years after the unthinkable happened, the story of the Bellingham natural gas explosion is also a story of how a community came together to tackle a nationwide problem and protect other Americans from coast to coast. As we together learned about the problems with inspection and oversight of our national pipeline system, the community channeled their grief into action.

Through research, I found out there were inadequate laws, insufficient oversight, too few inspections, and not enough trained inspectors, as well as a lack of awareness about these pipeline dangers. I learned one of the most important public safety offices, the Office of Pipeline Safety, was underfunded and neglected.

I asked the inspector general of the Department of Transportation to investigate the Office of Pipeline Safety and provide recommendations for how we could make this system work better, and I got to work writing a bill to improve pipeline safety in America.

It turned out to be a very long, hard fight to convince Congress this was something we had to do something about. The people of Bellingham stood with me every single step of the way. The parents of the young victims who were tragically lost on this date came to Washington, DC, to testify. So did Bellingham Mayor Mark Asmundson, and Carl Weimer, who is now head of the Pipeline Safety Trust.

That trust came into being thanks to the efforts of families and a group called SAFE Bellingham, that had organized to fight for the better pipeline safety and accident prevention measures.

So together with them and the great support of colleagues here in the Senate--Senator John McCain took a tremendous lead as chair of the committee, and I thank him for that; former Senators Slade Gorton and Fritz Hollings came together; Senator Cantwell; Congress Members Jack Metcalf, Rick Larsen; many others--together we worked very hard and passed and President Bush finally signed into law our legislation in 2002 to give the Office of Pipeline Safety the resources and the muscle it needed to keep Americans safe. That law improved the training of pipeline personnel. It raised the penalty for safety violations. It invested in new technology that was badly needed so we could improve pipeline safety. It improved the inspection practices and, importantly, expanded authority to our States to conduct their own safety activities.

So children today in every corner of our State are safer because the people of Bellingham stood up and said: We do not want this to happen ever again.

But I am here today to remind us, 10 years later, that the work is not done. While our law has greatly reduced the number of pipeline tragedies, there still are accidents every year. That is why I am on the floor today to introduce a Senate resolution designating June 10 as National Pipeline Safety Day. I am introducing this resolution to remind all of our communities to remain vigilant and to encourage their State and local governments to continue to promote pipeline safety and to create public awareness of the pipelines that run under and through every one of our communities.

For me, this 10-year anniversary is a reminder of a day of terrible pain we must never forget. But it is also a reminder that we cannot just assume someone else is taking care of things. We cannot slip back to where we were before. We have to stay vigilant and continue to work to improve the safety of our pipeline system. That is the best way we can continue to celebrate and honor Steven, Wade, and Liam.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 181 which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,

the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

I thank my Senate colleagues.

I remind all of us as Americans that we have to be vigilant about what is around us, and when we are, we can make a difference in the lives of many people. The tragedy that occurred in Bellingham, WA, 10 years ago today will remain with me always and with the families of Bellingham and everyone else. But if we do our work and we remain vigilant and we fund the Office of Pipeline Safety and we insist on strong protections, we can protect families in the future. That is what is important about today.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Earlier this morning and, in fact, for the past several days, I have been interested to hear the comments from several of our Republican counterparts on the issue of health care. They are talking about Canada. Now, that is interesting. I appreciate that. Coming from a State close to Canada, we are very interested in what Canada does. But the discussion about what Canada does with its health care system has no bearing on what we are trying to do here in the Senate and Congress to reform the American health care system.

I guess, and I am only guessing, they want to talk about Canada because they do not want to talk about their real priority. Their real priority in coming out and inflating a discussion that should not even exist because it is not what we are talking about is simply because they want to protect the status quo. They want to protect the status quo in our health care system today. So they are out here talking about Canada. Well, that is not an option.

Let me tell you what we are doing because this is a very important discussion and a very important piece of legislation we are beginning our work on in the Senate. The status quo is not acceptable. This is an extraordinary moment of opportunity for real reform in health care. We here in the Senate are working very hard to come up with legislation that will reduce the cost for our families, for our businesses, and for our government.

Like all of my colleagues, I go home every weekend and I hear from individual families and people, from community leaders and businesses that the status quo is not acceptable. They will not tolerate a debate here in the Senate that goes for the status quo.

We here in the Senate are working on legislation that will protect people's choice of doctors, will protect their choice of hospitals, will protect their choice of insurance plan. If you like what you have today, that will be what you have when this legislation is passed. And that is very important. We are also working as a goal to assure that affordable, high-quality health care is available for every American. That is not the case today. Our work really builds on the existing employer-based system we have. We strengthen it. Again, if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. Let me say this again: If you like what you have, when our legislation is passed and signed by the President, you will be able to keep it. But if you do not like what you have today in terms of your health care or if you do not have any health care insurance at all, we are going to provide new options for you so you have better health care.

Health care reform is not a luxury, it is an imperative today. Our health care system puts far too many Americans into crisis, and reforming it is an urgent necessity that demands our immediate attention. If we are going to restore the economy and secure our Nation's fiscal future, now is the time to make health care more affordable for American families and business and government at every level. Doing nothing is not an option.

As we move forward on this debate, I remind all of us, do not be distracted by superfluous arguments that do not apply to the bills we are discussing.

The bill on which we are going to move forward in the Senate makes sure that if you like what you have today, you are going to be able to keep it. But as you and I both know, Mr. President, too many people cannot afford their health care today or they are unable to get health insurance because their insurance company says: You have too many problems, we are not going to insure you, or they do not have insurance at all. We want to make sure health care is available to every American.

I am very proud of the effort that is going on as we speak. The health care committee is meeting today with our Republican colleagues to walk through our ideas we have now been putting together and get their input and ask for their options. We hope to work with

them side by side, and we are giving them every opportunity to do so, because health care has to work for all Americans.

So despite the rhetoric we heard on the floor this morning about Canada, which I love--Canada is a great country--that is not what we are doing here. We are moving forward on health care reform that is drastically needed. The status quo is not an option. Doing nothing is not an option. Stopping us from moving forward is not an option. This is an issue we are having the courage to take up and move forward on because America needs us to do that.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, mounting debt is taking a big toll on families throughout this Nation. That is why over the past few weeks we have passed bills to stop mortgage scams and to prosecute corporate fraud and to lower fees for homeowners and help them into stable mortgages. Today we have an opportunity to continue to put Main Street first.

Over the last several months, I have heard credit card horror stories from my families all over the State of Washington. I have heard from people who paid their cards on time but saw their supposedly fixed rates skyrocket unexpectedly or who had their minimum required payment doubled with no notice.

I have heard from families who are 1 day late on their minimum payment, so the card company hiked up their rate and charged them a late fee, which put their card over their credit limit and that incurred another fee.

I have heard from people who say their credit card company raised their minimum payment, and when they called to complain, they were offered their lower minimum payment back but only if they accepted a dramatic increase in the rate.

With so many of our families struggling to make ends meet today, it is especially important that we stand up to protect families from excessive credit card fees from unexpected hikes in interest rates and minimum required payments and constantly changing credit card agreements that are designed to make a profit by keeping families in debt. That is why we need to implement the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, or CARD Act, to help protect consumers from predatory and misleading lending practices.

The CARD Act we are going to be considering in the Senate today requires credit card issuers to give 45 days' notice of rate increases and to provide clear disclosure of term changes when accounts are renewed. It prohibits the so-called double-cycle billing where interest is assessed on the whole debt even when one portion was paid on time. It prevents card companies from using a contract clause to raise consumers' rates at any time for any reason that they choose. And it prohibits companies from issuing credit cards to anyone under the age of 21 unless the application is cosigned by a parent or guardian or the underage consumer completes a certified financial literacy course.

We are going to bring fairness back to the system by stopping financial institutions from taking advantage of consumers with hidden charges and misleading terms. No one should have to be surprised by changes to interest rates or their minimum payments. These steps are going to help us level the playing field and are going to save families thousands of dollars a year.

This bill addresses a number of things that are keeping credit card users in debt, and it is a good start. But at the same time we strengthen protections for credit card users, we have to make sure that people are empowered to make responsible decisions about their own financial future. Put another way, it is not enough to prevent credit card companies from changing the rules when too many Americans don't even know the rules in the first place.

The reality is that over the last several years, too many Americans have made poor or very often uninformed decisions about their finances. Too many overestimated their resources, didn't read the fine print, and didn't grasp the terms of their financial responsibilities before they signed on that dotted line. In fact, we have to recognize that too many Americans, from college students all the way to senior citizens, are financially illiterate.

I recently heard from a constituent of mine in Spokane County whose daughter had applied for credit cards shortly after she turned 18 years old. She, of course, didn't have much income and had difficulty making some of those payments on time. Her mom said one of those cards had a $500 limit. But instead of the bank declining purchases that would exceed that limit, each purchase she made went through and the bank charged a $37 fee for each and every one of them. Another bank charged her $7 every day because she had a $20 overdraft. Of course, she didn't have any hope of paying down those debts on her own.

Those are problems that could have been avoided if she had simply understood her financial responsibilities and the terms of her financial agreements. That is exactly why I have introduced

bipartisan legislation to make sure we help people develop the skills they need to make sound, informed financial decisions, from signing up for credit cards to taking out a mortgage to planning for your retirement.

The Financial and Economic Literacy Improvement Act of 2009 will require the Federal Government to step to the plate and become a real partner in helping Americans manage their finances and make good, informed financial decisions. It is a bipartisan bill. Senator Cochran has cosponsored it with me.

The purpose of the bill is to give young people the tools to make informed decisions about credit cards or student loans, to help them understand the importance of saving, and to have the knowledge to plan a comfortable and dignified retirement down the road.

We used to say the three Rs of school were ``reading, writing, and arithmetic.'' I think we need to add a fourth R: resource management.

Under our financial literacy bill, the Federal Government will become a strong supporter of making financial literacy education a core part of our K-12 education. The bill would authorize $125 million annually for our State and our local education agencies and their partnerships with organizations experienced in providing high quality financial literacy and economic instruction. That funding will help make financial literacy a part of our core academic classes. It will help to develop financial literacy standards and testing benchmarks and, importantly, provide teacher training. It will also help schools weave financial concepts into some of their basic classes, such as math or social studies.

The training will not end in high school. This bill makes the same investment in teaching financial literacy in our 2- and 4-year schools. Whether it is skyrocketing interest rates on credit cards or an adjustable rate mortgage you can no longer afford or a retirement plan they do not understand, I often hear the same thing from people: I wish they had taught me this in school.

Our financial literacy bill will ensure that we are teaching it in school and will help people learn those basic skills that are so necessary that will give them a leg up when they deal with their banks or credit card companies.

Let me be clear, credit is not a bad thing. When used correctly, credit can be a lifeline to the American dream. It can provide our entrepreneurs with the startup funds to become small business owners. It can help small business owners with the capital to grow into bigger businesses. And it provides families with the financial security to plan for their future.

But at this important time in our history, as we reflect on financial practices, it is very important that we work to restore our credit card responsibility for lenders and for consumers. That is why I am working to support this bill and my financial literacy legislation.

Just as families and consumers cannot afford unforeseen rate hikes and exorbitant card fees, we cannot afford for our young people today to not understand their own finances.

I congratulate Chairman Dodd on crafting the CARD Act, and I hope the Senate passes it quickly this week. I look forward to continuing to put priorities of Main Street first and following through with that next step that is so important: passing the Financial and Economic Literacy Improvement Act.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, our Nation's next drug czar is going to face a number of key challenges. The Office of Drug Control Policy is going to play a leading role in addressing the drug-related violence in Mexico and along the southwest border--an area where, if we don't take the right steps to tackle problems today, we will most certainly see the spread of violence and drugs into towns and residences thousands of miles from the Mexican border.

We also know from history that as the economy falls, crime rises, and that crime is growing at the same time law enforcement agencies across the country face painful cutbacks and greater strains on their personnel and resources. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the next drug czar to ensure that law enforcement at all levels is working smarter, forging new relationships, and leveraging the resources they have. We will also have to address the rise in prescription drug abuse, the continued scourge of methamphetamine use, and the violence that affects so many of our communities due to drug trafficking.

Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske is the right man to address these big challenges. Chief Kerlikowske brings a fresh new perspective to the job as the Nation's drug czar. He is a cop's cop, and his perspective was shaped patrolling the streets in Florida, New York, and Washington State. Along the way, he has helped thousands of people touched by violence and drugs. He and the law enforcement officials that he has led have been on the front lines of our Nation's war against illicit narcotics and in keeping our communities safe. And I know that he will bring this hands-on perspective to his job as our Nation's drug czar.

Chief Kerlikowske also understands the importance of partnerships between ONDCP and our State and local law enforcement communities, because he has been on the local level. As the head of the Major Cities Chiefs Organization, which represents the 63 largest police departments in the United States, he sees the common problems facing cities across the country. I have seen this firsthand in his work as Seattle police chief.

This past December, under Chief Kerlikowske's leadership, the Seattle Police Department, in cooperation with county, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, he was able to bust a drug ring that stretched from Mexico to Idaho to Seattle.

Chief Kerlikowske worked cooperatively to create a regional response to gang violence in Seattle and in King County. He built a coalition with the King County Sheriff's Office and other King County police chiefs, with the Washington Department of Corrections, the ATF, and other community leaders to tackle persistent gang violence in our neighborhoods. These multiagency, Federal-local partnerships require cooperation and compromise, and they require a leader with Chief Kerlikowske's experience to bring them all together. Local police chiefs and sheriffs have told me they are sorry to see him go, but the Nation is gaining a true innovator in Gil Kerlikowske. I know he is going to continue to work on these relationships with State and local law enforcement across the country, and this approach will make all of our communities safer.

Chief Kerlikowske also understands that the drug war will not only be won on the streets but in our classrooms and in our homes. For the past 9 years, he has been the national board chairman for the group Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. Under the guidance of Chief Kerlikowske, this group has focused their efforts on the importance of prevention by fighting for early childhood intervention funding, afterschool programs, and efforts to prevent child abuse. Chief Kerlikowske knows the best way to end the use of drugs and spread of crime is to prevent it, and he will bring that commonsense approach to ONDCP.

Chief Kerlikowske has served the people of our State well, and he will serve the people of the Nation well also. I am so proud to support his confirmation. In a few short minutes, the Senate will be voting on this confirmation, and I am very proud to stand here today to tell my colleagues they will be glad they voted with us to confirm this nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Reed for his hard work on this bill. Unfortunately, our homeless shelters and our schools are seeing an increasing number of families and children experiencing homelessness and seeking services. This bill comes at an important time. And I am particularly pleased with the emphasis placed on prevention and rapid rehousing, and efforts to better serve homeless individuals, such as victims of domestic violence.

Mr. President, I would like to inquire of my colleagues Senator Reed and

Chairman Dodd regarding the definition of homelessness in HEARTH Act and amendment No. 1040.

I thank the Senator. As you know, this amendment contains a new definition of homelessness. Homelessness is an issue I have long been concerned about both the immediate consequences of not having housing, as well as the adverse effects it can have on the broader success of children and families. For example, children that experience homelessness are more likely to fall behind in school and to experience social and emotional difficulties that hinder their academic and workplace success. Therefore, the Federal Government not only helps provide housing services for youth and families, but also education services through the McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youths program at the Department of Education.

I appreciate the efforts to broaden the definition of homelessness in the HEARTH Act. It is an important step forward. However, I want to ensure that this new definition of homelessness does not inadvertently cause a lapse in services or cause confusion with the definition of homelessness included in the McKinney Vento Education of Homeless Children and Youth program.

Is it the Senators' intent that the definition of homelessness in the HEARTH Act, which covers homeless youth as well as families, should ever replace or change the definition of homelessness under the McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youths program at the U.S. Department of Education?

I thank the Senators. I have also worked hard on helping to encourage collaboration between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education to ensure the best services possible for homeless youth. Is it the Senators' intent that the Department of Housing and Urban Development should do everything in its power to coordinate with the Department of Education on serving homeless youth, and to ensure that no lapse in services under the Education of Homeless Children and Youths program occurs for students as any new HEARTH Act definition of homelessness is implemented?

This amendment will broaden HUD's definition of homelessness to include a subset of children and youth who meet the definition of homelessness used by other federal statutes. I appreciate the inclusion of these children and believe it is a step in the right direction. In particular, it covers those children and youth who: (1) have experienced a long-term period without living stably or independently in permanent housing; (2) have experienced persistent instability; and (3) who are likely to continue to do so because of disability or other barriers.

Since these concepts, such as the term ``long term period,'' are open to interpretation, is it the Senators' intent that HUD should consider the needs of children and the effects of instability on their developmental and academic progress when developing the regulations for this provision?

Mr. President, by including language that acknowledges the various definitions of homeless in other Federal statutes, is it the Senators' intention that HUD funded homeless providers should be encouraged to engage with homeless providers receiving funds from other Federal agencies to utilize their assessments and counsel in making eligibility determinations.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the committee on improving services for students. Lastly, I understand that this amendment prohibits the Secretary from requiring that communities conduct actual counts of families and youth who are newly added to the HUD definition in HUD-mandated homelessness counts. Am I correct that this provision does not prohibit the Secretary from requiring communities to provide estimates of those who are newly added to the definition, so that communities may have a better sense of the shelter and housing needs of all families, children, and youth who will be considered homeless by HUD under this legislation?

I thank the Senators, and I look forward to continuing to work on these issues.

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

Mr. President, there is no question that our country's defense procurement process is broken. At a time when the American people are tightening their personal budgets, making sacrifices, and focusing on essentials, our defense acquisition program continues to run up huge bills.

Just this year, the GAO reported that the major defense procurement program is $296 billion over budget. Not only are they over budget, they are behind schedule. In fact, 95 percent of DOD's largest acquisition programs are now an average of 2 years behind schedule. Every extra day, every additional dollar spent on these systems is a step backward for our Nation's other priorities.

As we tackle the big challenges by getting our economy back on track or our health care system working again for all Americans or establishing a clean energy future, it is time that we focused on trimming the fat in our defense budget.

I applaud our Armed Services chairman, Senator Levin, and the ranking member, Senator McCain, for introducing the bold plan that is now before the Senate, which will bring about reform. Their bill recognizes that making changes to acquisition starts at the beginning of the process, with the proper testing and the cost calculating and development procedures. It also returns discipline to the process by making sure the rules limiting cost are enforced. Those and other badly needed steps are going to help reform our system and return Federal dollars to meet the challenges we have on the horizon.

Mr. President, that should be only the first step because the truth is that, while today's debate has been delayed for far too long, there is another hard conversation surrounding procurement that we have not yet even started, and that is the conversation about the future of the men and women who produce our tanks, our planes, and our boats. The skilled workforce our military depends on is a workforce that is disappearing today before our eyes.

Our Government depends on our highly skilled industries, our manufacturers, our engineers, our researchers, and our development and science base to keep the U.S. military stocked with the best and most advanced equipment and tools available. Whether it is scientists who are designing the next generation of military satellites or engineers who are improving our radar system or machinists who are assembling warplanes, these industries and their workers are one of our greatest strategic assets today. What if those weren't available? What if we made budgetary and policy decisions without talking about the future needs of our domestic workforce? It is not impossible. It is not even unthinkable. It is actually what is happening.

We need to have a real dialog about the ramifications of these decisions before we lose the capability to provide our military with the tools and equipment they need because once our plants shut down, once our skilled workforce and workers move to other fields, and once that infrastructure is gone, it is not going to be rebuilt overnight if we need it.

As a Senator from the State of Washington, representing five major military bases and many military contractors, I am very aware of the important relationship between our military and the producers that keep them protected with the latest technological advances. I have also seen the ramifications of the Pentagon's decisions on communities, workers, and families. As many here know, I have been sounding the alarm about a declining domestic aerospace industry for years.

This isn't just about one company or one State or one industry. This is about our Nation's economic stability. It is about our skill base. It is about our future military capability. We have watched as the domestic base has shrunk. We have watched as competition has disappeared and as our military has looked overseas for the products that we have the capability to produce right here at home.

Many in the Senate have spent a lot of time talking about how many American jobs are being shipped overseas in search of cheaper labor. But we haven't focused nearly enough attention on the high-wage, high- skilled careers being lost to the realities of our procurement system. That is why, today, I am going to be introducing an amendment that will require the Pentagon to explain to

us in Congress and to the American people how their decisions affect good-paying jobs and the long-term strength of our industrial base.

My amendment will help to ensure that our industrial base is capable of meeting our national security objectives. It took us a very long time to build our industrial base. We have machinists who have past experience and know-how down the ranks for more than 50 years. We have engineers who know our mission, know the needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. We have a reputation for delivering for our military. But once those plants shut down, those industries are gone. We not only lose the jobs, but we lose the skills and the potential ability to provide our military with the equipment to defend our Nation and project our might worldwide. Preserving a healthy domestic base also breeds competition. That is good for innovation and, ultimately, for our taxpayers.

So today, as we begin this very serious and necessary conversation on procurement reform, we cannot afford to forget the needs of our industrial base. We have to consider how we achieve reform while continuing to support the development of our industrial base here at home.

It calls for thoughtful planning and projection about who our future enemies might possibly be and how they might possibly try to defeat us in this Nation. It is critical that our country and our military maintain a nimble and dynamic base. Once a new threat is identified, a solution has to be close at hand.

The discussion we are having on procurement reform in the Senate is happening as our country faces two difficult but not unrelated challenges: winning an international war on terror and rebuilding a faltering economy. It would be irresponsible not to include the needs of our industrial base as we move forward because unless we begin to address this issue now, we are not only going to continue to lose some of our best paying American jobs, we are going to lose the backbone of our military might.

I will be offering this amendment, and I would love to have the support of our colleagues to make sure we have a strong nation in the future.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 132, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 133, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 134, which was introduced earlier today.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 135, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.