[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 20, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1550-E1551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2601, FOREIGN RELATIONS 
             AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2006 AND 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 19, 2005

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, which 
prevents the House

[[Page E1551]]

from considering several very important amendments to the State 
Department Authorization Act. Among them is one that I offered that 
would have made the Navy's Marine One helicopter program subject to 
existing export control laws--that would also have limited the ability 
of foreign companies working on the Marine One program to sell the 
technology used in the President's helicopter to countries like Iran 
and other threats to our national security.
  Unfortunately, this is a very real possibility. In January, the 
Marine One contract was awarded to a European consortium led by 
Finmeccanica Italy and its British subsidiary, Agusta Westland, and 
only a month later, both companies appeared at an aerospace tradeshow--
in Iran. The American president of Finmeccanica's U.S. division 
explained his company's presence in Iran by saying ``I think they're 
our enemy,'' going on to explain, quote, ``In Europe, they don't call 
[Iran] the enemy''--as if that somehow makes it acceptable to sell them 
our most advanced aerospace technology.
  The notion that the companies building the president's helicopter, 
working with sensitive American technology, may be doing business with 
a member of what the president himself called the ``Axis of Evil'' 
should give us all very serious concern. Do we want these companies to 
be able to easily transfer Marine One technology to Iran or other 
countries? Because that is a very real possibility given the contract 
the Navy has signed.
  Mr. Speaker, few images capture the U.S. Presidency like that of the 
Marine One helicopter landing on the White House lawn, the president 
emerging from under the blades--it is ingrained in our collective 
national consciousness. Even 7 months after this decision was made, I 
still find it hard to believe that the next generation of the 
president's helicopters will be largely built not by American but 
foreign workers, with 36 percent of the work on the Marine One program 
performed in England and Italy. Indeed, the Navy expects to procure 32 
aircraft, the first seven of which will be constructed almost entirely 
in England. Only the final assembly will be done in the United States. 
This ought to be a matter of our national pride.
  While I believe that all of this work should be done in the United 
States, my amendment would have at least ensured that the work on this 
program--funded by the U.S. taxpayer, but done outside the United 
States--will not fall into the hands of state sponsors of terrorism.
  To be clear, I have no quarrel with Lockheed-Martin or Bell 
Helicopters, who are partners with Finmeccanica and Agusta Westland in 
this program. Like Sikorsky, they make many fine products upon which 
our troops rely, and they employ thousands of hard-working men and 
women whose love of country is unrivaled. But, Mr. Speaker, the 
decision to award a large portion of this contract to European 
companies is deeply misguided and could have an adverse impact on our 
national security.
  Mr. Speaker, the Marine One helicopter is expected to have the most 
advanced parts, security features, communications equipment and 
survivalibity of any rotorcraft in our military's arsenal. And to allow 
that technology and equipment to fall into the hands of threats to our 
national security is a risk that none of use should take. Yet that is 
exactly what the House Republican leadership has forced us into doing.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule so that the House may have 
the opportunity to consider this critically important issue.

                          ____________________