[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 39 (Friday, March 7, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1720-S1721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OUTSOURCING THE U.S. AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the course of this past week, I have
come to the Senate floor every single
[[Page S1721]]
day to sound an alarm about the misguided and potentially dangerous
decision to outsource a major piece of our aerospace industry to
Europe.
I have talked about the dismay Boeing workers felt in my home State
of Washington when they learned the Pentagon had decided to award a
contract to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers not
to Boeing but to a French company, Airbus.
I have talked about my shock that we would award Airbus this
contract, given the EU's lengthy history of subsidizing these planes in
order to create European, not American, jobs.
I have talked about the fact that Airbus is being less than open
about how many U.S. jobs it will really create in this country.
All of these are reasons to be deeply troubled about this decision.
But today I want to address yet another concern; that is, the ability
to control our national security once we have effectively turned over
control of our military capability and technology to a foreign
government. This is an issue we all need to take a good hard look at.
America's global military strength is built on our ability to use
military might anywhere in the world, at a moment's notice. Our aerial
refueling tankers are the critical link that allows the U.S. Air Force
to stretch across the globe. From Fairchild Air Force Base in my home
State of Washington to the Far East, from Andrews to Baghdad, our
bombers and our fighters can fly farther and faster because our
tankers, which supply fuel in midair, are always there to support them.
Tankers, in fact, are so important to our military that Army GEN Hugh
Shelton, who is the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, once said the
motto of the tanker and airlift forces should be: ``Try fighting
without us.''
Until now, the technology that powered these critical planes rested
in the hands of Boeing and its American workforce, who have been
building them for more than 50 years now.
Until now, our tankers have been built by manufacturers, by
designers, and by engineers who have been able to pass on those skills
and technology that 50 years of experience brings, and who are bound by
law from selling that technology to countries that sponsor
terrorism. Well, last Friday, that ended. Last Friday, the Air Force
made a decision that will enable a company that is controlled by a
foreign government to develop and share that technology. Are we going
to look back on this decision and say this is the moment when we threw
open the doors to our military technology? Are we going to allow our
tankers, a linchpin of our national defense, to be the first domino to
fall?
I have said this before. With one contract, we could wipe out what it
has taken our Nation 50 years to build up: an experienced and
exceptional aerospace industry. Once it is gone, we are not going to
get it back. We will not get it back. Once we lose the ability to
produce military technology right here at home, we begin to lose
control over our Nation's defense.
This decision effectively gives foreign governments control over
aspects of our own national security. In this case, we are giving up
control and $40 billion to the European Aeronautical Defense and Space
Company called EADS. That is the company that has made no secret of
their desire to dismantle our American aerospace industry. In fact,
this decision can be seen as a $40 billion investment in the military
research budget of EADS and Airbus.
So we are allowing Airbus to take over a cornerstone of our military
technology, and we are actually paying them to do it. While that
certainly doesn't make sense, the fact that this deal could allow
Airbus to share American technology with whomever they please is just
plain dangerous.
The Air Force's decision means that American tanker technology, which
has been developed over the last 50 years, is now out on the free
market, available to the highest bidder. Under American law, the law
that Boeing has to abide by, they are prohibited from selling
technology to countries that sponsor terrorism. In other words, we have
control. We have control over where that technology goes right now. But
EADS and Airbus don't have to follow those same restrictions. They have
said so in the past, and they have demonstrated that they don't care
about giving technology to terrorists. They only care about their
bottom line.
In fact, back in 2005, EADS was caught trying to sell military
helicopters to Iran. But if the company is so pro-American, as they are
saying right now, why was it ignoring U.S. policy to isolate Iran?
Well, the answer to that question was simple to EADS Representative
Michel Tripier. When he was asked about this back in 2005, his response
was:
As a European company, we are not supposed to take into
account embargoes from the U.S.
Let me repeat that. Here is what he said:
As a European company, we are not supposed to take into
account embargoes from the U.S.
In 2006, EADS, the parent company of Airbus, proved they meant it
when they tried to sell transport and patrol planes to Venezuela. That
is a circumvention of U.S. law.
What if in the years to come Airbus wants to sell their tanker
technology to Pakistan, to China, or to Iran? I wish to remind my
colleagues that Russia now owns 5 percent of EADS, and it is pushing
for 10 percent more. The United Arab Emirates now controls 7.5 percent
of EADS.
What the Air Force has done is extremely shortsighted. They have said
it wasn't their responsibility to take our security or our industry
into account. Well, I say to my colleagues: Then Congress has to.
Congress has to. We need to be more forward-looking than the Air Force
was last Friday.
What happens in 20 years if EADS is controlled by countries that
disagree with our policy on, say, Israel or elsewhere in the Middle
East or around the globe? What if they decide to slow down production
of tankers, to put us at a strategic disadvantage? Right now, we have
no way to prevent that.
Where do we go from here? What other aspect of our military
technology are we Americans willing to part with? Our aerial tankers
are the backbone of our military strength. But what about our other
critical military supplies? Are we going to outsource our tanks? Are we
going to outsource our military satellites? What about the missiles
that are currently made in Alabama? Are we going to outsource those?
What about the equipment that has to be delivered constantly to our
troops in the field? Are we going to outsource our meals ready to eat,
our ammunition? I would not support that, and I know many of my
colleagues wouldn't either.
So I am here to ask all of us: Where do we draw the line? The Air
Force said it wasn't their job to consider the future of our national
security and defense, but we as Senators have taken an oath to do that.
I urge all my colleagues to take pause and truly think about the
consequences of this shortsighted contract. The American people and our
national security are depending on it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 2734
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BOND. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from
Massachusetts is recognized.
____________________