[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 4, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1487-S1489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              BOEING LOSES

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last Friday I stood on the floor of the 
767 line with workers in Everett, WA, who have put their hearts and 
their souls into making Boeing airplanes. I was there as those workers 
learned that after 50 years--five decades--the Air Force no longer 
wants them to build its refueling tankers. I saw the dismay in their 
eyes when they learned their Government is going to outsource one of 
the largest defense contracts in history to the French company Airbus. 
It was devastating news for Boeing, for American workers, and for 
America's men and women in uniform.
  Today, those workers are frustrated, and they are angry, not only 
because the tanker contract would mean 44,000 new American jobs in 40 
States, including 9,000 in my home State of Washington; they are 
frustrated and angry because their Government let them down. They are 
frustrated and angry because their Government wants to take American 
tax dollars, their tax dollars, and give that money to a foreign 
company to build planes for our military.
  I am frustrated and angry, too, because I cannot think of a worse 
time for a worse decision. Our economy is hurting. We are nearing a 
recession, if we are not already there. Families are struggling just to 
get by, in part because their factory jobs have been moved overseas.
  This tanker contract was not just one defense contract, it was a key 
piece

[[Page S1488]]

of our national and economic security. The Boeing 767 tanker would have 
helped stabilize and strengthen the American aerospace industry. We are 
hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs to foreign countries already, so I 
cannot imagine why, at a time like this, our Government would decide to 
take 44,000 American jobs, good jobs, and give them to the Europeans 
instead of securing the American economy and our military while we are 
at war. We are creating a European economic stimulus plan at the 
expense of U.S. workers.

  I have a lot of tough questions I hope I will get answers to soon 
because there seems to be some real disconnect here. For one, how can 
we, while we are at war across the globe, justify putting a contract 
that involves military security into the hands of a foreign government? 
Outsourcing a key piece of our American military capabilities to any 
foreign company is a national security risk.
  Airbus and its parent company, EADS, have already given us reason to 
worry about how hard they will work to protect our security interests.
  In 2005, EADS was caught trying to sell military helicopters to Iran 
despite our concern about Iran's support of terrorists in Iraq and 
their efforts to develop nuclear weapons. When they were confronted, 
EADS answered that as a European country, they were not supposed to 
take into account embargos from the United States. Well, that is the 
company to which the Air Force is now going to give a major military 
contract. But that is just one example. In 2006, EADS tried to sell C-
295 and CN-235 transport and patrol planes to Venezuela--a 
circumvention of U.S. law. We prohibit foreign countries from selling 
military products containing U.S.-made military technology to third 
countries without U.S. approval. Part of the reason is because we want 
to keep our weapons from falling into the hands of countries such as 
Venezuela which have threatened U.S. security and mean us harm. We 
cannot trust a foreign company to keep our military's best interests in 
mind, especially one that has a history of trying to sell weapons and 
military technology to unfriendly countries.
  But you know what, I think this raises a bigger question too. What 
happens if France or Russia--which is pushing to increase its stake in 
EADS, by the way--decided it wants to slow down our military capacity 
because it does not like our policy? Do we want another country to have 
that kind of control? I think that is one of the questions we need to 
answer, and we need to answer it now.
  I also want to know why this Government would choose an unproven 
plane using unproven technology for a program that is so vital to our 
U.S. Air Force. Tankers are so important to our military that Army GEN 
Hugh Shelton, who was the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said 
that the motto of the tanker and airlift forces should be ``try 
fighting without us.''
  Boeing has 75 years of experience designing planes for our Air Force. 
Boeing's tanker has been a reliable part of the U.S. military fleet for 
so long that we have squadron pilots whose fathers and even 
grandfathers have flown them. Boeing could have started building these 
tankers immediately.
  In Everett, the machinists call Airbus's tanker a ``paper airplane.'' 
Why? Because Airbus's tanker only exists on a sheet of paper. Now, 
although Airbus has taken contracts for tankers, it has not yet 
actually delivered a single refueling tanker, ever. Yet our Air Force 
just picked that plane--that ``paper airplane''--to serve one of 
military's most critical functions.
  Finally, I do not understand why the Air Force did not take jobs into 
consideration when it awarded this contract. Yet that is what they said 
on Friday. The Air Force said simply that Airbus's tanker will be an 
American plane with an American flag on it. Well, you know what, you 
can put an American sticker on a plane and call it American, but that 
does not make it American-made, especially if it was made in France. It 
seems to me extraordinary that when the military is deciding how to 
spend $40 billion in American taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, it would 
not at least consider the effects it would have on the economy.
  This is not just $40 billion either, and it is not just 44,000 jobs; 
it is much bigger because this affects Boeing's entire 767 line and all 
of the communities that depend upon it. In Everett, we know this. 
Boeing's health touches everything: how much people spend on groceries 
and clothes and whether they can buy a car or even a home. I think the 
Everett Herald put it in perspective Saturday when it quoted the 
general manager of our local mall, who said:

       When Boeing sneezes, we all grab for the Kleenex.

  This loss is going to be felt in our homes and our businesses and 
communities throughout Washington State and the entire country wherever 
there is a Boeing factory or a Boeing supplier.
  Now, my colleagues from Alabama came on the floor last night and 
defended Airbus. They argued that this contract does not outsource 
jobs. We still do not really know how many jobs Airbus might create in 
the United States. That has not been decided. The only thing we know 
for sure is that much if not most of the initial work will be done 
overseas. And today, guess what. The Europeans are celebrating that. 
The United Kingdom's Business Secretary is already counting the jobs. 
Do not listen to me. Listen to what they are saying in their papers 
overseas over the weekend after the contract was announced.
  UK's Business Secretary, John Hutton, quoted in the papers in Europe 
over the weekend:

       The massive contract will secure a number of years of work 
     for the UK industry benefitting not just Airbus UK, but also 
     many other UK suppliers.

  The German Government's coordinator for the aerospace industry said 
over the weekend:

       It is a massive breakthrough for the European aerospace 
     industry on the key American market.

  They are not talking about jobs that might be created in the United 
States, they are talking about jobs that are being created--and lots of 
them--in the European Union. For decades, we have been talking about 
this, and now here we are.
  What does France's Prime Minister say? He said of the victory over 
the weekend:

       It testifies to the competitiveness of our industry and 
     does honor to France and Europe.

  They are not celebrating this as an American victory, they are 
celebrating it as a victory for France and Europe. Europe has provided 
subsidies for decades to prop up this company, Airbus, and EADS-Airbus 
is a European jobs program that has created an uneven playing field and 
led to tens of thousands of layoffs here in the United States. 
Europeans are willing to do anything to distort the market and beat out 
Boeing.
  The tanker they will supply for the military is a result of that 
decades-long effort. I have for years--and my colleagues know this--
been coming out here and urging the administration and Congress to 
fight to save America's aerospace industry from a European takeover in 
order to save American jobs. We have demanded that Europe stop the 
subsidies and play by the rules. In fact, because of EADS illegal 
tactics, the U.S. Government right now has a WTO case pending against 
Airbus, the same company to which we are now awarding a $40 billion 
contract. It took us 100 years to build the aerospace industry in this 
country. We have to defend it. Once those plants are shut down and our 
skilled workers move on to other fields, we cannot recreate that 
overnight. What did the administration turn around and do? It handed 
Airbus $40 billion of taxpayer money and 44,000 jobs and did ``honor to 
France and Europe.'' It is no wonder Boeing's workers are angry. One 
worker said to me: It is a slap in the face. Many others are asking: 
How could this happen?
  I am angry too. I am looking forward to asking these questions of the 
administration. The hard-working Americans in my State and across the 
country deserve to know why this administration has given their jobs 
and a contract involving a major piece of our military capability to 
France.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, what on Earth is going on here? I am 
extremely disappointed. No, I am shocked. This isn't shock and awe; 
this is shock and shock over the Air Force's decision to choose EADS or 
Airbus

[[Page S1489]]

over Boeing to make our critical new aerial refueling tanker. This is 
the Air Force, not Alice in Wonderland. I pay credit and associate 
myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Washington, 
Mrs. Murray, and thank her for reserving this time, for taking a 
leadership role, along with her colleague from Washington, Senator 
Cantwell. I thank them both for their efforts. We are going to need a 
bipartisan approach to this to see if we can't get some answers.
  Simply put, it does not make sense that the Air Force would choose a 
foreign entity that has no prior tanker experience to build the next 
generation of refueling aircraft for the men and women of our Air 
Force. I met with the Air Force yesterday. I appreciate that. It was 
about an hour and a half meeting. It was not pleasant. We had what we 
call ``meaningful dialog.'' I am still not satisfied with their 
conclusion. In fact, I think there are many more questions that must be 
answered before this bid conclusion should move forward.
  For example, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out, why can't 
the Air Force brief Boeing sooner than next week? We already have leaks 
all over this town as to exactly what happened and the specifics of the 
RFP and the bid selection and everything else, but Boeing has not had a 
debriefing. Yesterday the Air Force said it was OK, that Boeing said: 
Fine, we are OK with a briefing next week on Tuesday. That is not the 
case.
  The two competitors were originally told that the briefing would be 
within 4 to 5 days of the contract announcement. The Air Force is not 
holding up to that bargain. Why did the secondary cargo mission--i.e., 
a larger plane--factor so large in the announcement briefing when this 
was a competition for a tanker? How could an airplane as large as the 
A330, which burns 24 percent more in fuel than the KC-767, possibly be 
valued as less costly? How did the Air Force evaluate the risk 
associated with a foreign government owning and subsidizing the Airbus 
tanker? Why were the fixed price options discussed at the announcement 
brief when the life-cycle cost was supposed to be the only measure? Is 
the Air Force concerned about delays and other issues stemming from the 
fact that EADS Airbus have never built a tanker with a boom? Will the 
Air Force need new equipment to deal with the repair of a foreign 
tanker? Why does the Air Force place cargo space over fuel efficiency 
and the ability to land and take off from more places? Where is this 
larger airplane going to land? Is the Air Force prepared to pay way 
more for the Airbus because of the amount of fuel it takes to fly them 
and the amount of capital it takes to open a brandnew assembly line in 
Europe? Is the Air Force aware that they currently do not use all of 
their available cargo space in the fleet? Is the Air Force aware that 
the Boeing 767 would provide even greater cargo space than they have 
now?
  What about the issues regarding the fact that the EADS Airbus company 
made the Lakota light utility helicopter? The way it was delivered, it 
can't even fly on hot days. They are putting air conditioning units in 
that helicopter. That makes it modified and makes it less maneuverable.
  Is the Air Force at all concerned with the backlash, described by 
Senator Murray, all across this country regarding the fact that they 
did not consider American jobs, much less the WTO dispute with Airbus 
or government subsidies issue with the EADS proposal? I can tell you, I 
hope I have been able to express my dismay over the Air Force's choice, 
but the problems simply don't end there. The Airbus frame will be made 
in Europe. There is no question about that. The nose will be made in 
France, the wings in Great Britain, and part of the fuselage in 
Germany. Bonjour, the Air Force has certainly gone into the wild blue 
European yonder, and they have never done this before.
  The Air Force gave no consideration to the fact that Boeing has built 
a tanker that lasted over 50 years. With every airframe being built in 
France, we are paying for the French national health care system. What 
kind of sense does that make? In fact, they gave more credit to 
Northrup Grumman for making other defense systems as recently as last 
year than they did Boeing. That is saying something about this 
competition when you consider Northrup won't even be making most of the 
plane. Airbus will. Again and again in this competition, the Air Force 
has not judged the two bids fairly. Not only did they not consider past 
performance accurately, they also placed a much higher price on the 
cargo space than they led anyone to believe.
  As my colleague from Kansas, Congressman Todd Tiahrt, expressed 
yesterday in the meeting with the Air Force, if they wanted an aircraft 
as large as the KC-10, they should have put out an RFP for one. But 
they didn't. They asked for a tanker, and that is what Boeing proposed. 
Airbus proposed something much different. It is my opinion that the men 
and women flying those aircraft are going to suffer for it.
  Make no mistake: Unless something changes, we will be dealing with 
the ramifications of this bid for the next 80 years. It will take 
Airbus longer to start up the assembly line than Boeing, and it will 
take them longer to produce a viable plane. When they finally do, that 
plane will be just plain too big.
  I am deeply troubled by this announcement. I expect to see a very 
detailed documentation on the questions we raised yesterday that were 
not answered from the Air Force. I also expect them to brief both 
competitors quickly. The long and short of it is, if this decision 
holds, it will be at the cost of American jobs, American dollars, if 
not our national security.
  I again thank Senator Murray for reserving this time and yield the 
floor.

                          ____________________