[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7230-S7232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Brownback
to introduce a bipartisan amendment to the Defense authorization bill
that will save and create jobs in one of the most important sectors in
our economy--our aerospace industry.
Our amendment is about protecting skilled family-wage jobs--
manufacturing jobs, engineering jobs, and jobs with technical skills
and expertise that are passed from one generation to the next. These
are jobs that not only support families during this difficult economic
time but that are also helping keep entire communities above water--
jobs in communities such as Kansas, Connecticut, California, and in my
home State of Washington. They are jobs that support small businesses,
pay mortgages, and create economic opportunity, and are jobs that right
now are at risk because of illegal subsidies that undercut workers and
create an uneven playing field for America's aerospace workers.
The amendment Senator Brownback and I are offering is a commonsense,
straightforward way to protect American aerospace jobs from unfair
European competition, and it is an amendment that specifically targets
a major job-creating project--the Air Force's aerial refueling tanker
contract--as a place where we can begin to restore fairness for our
aerospace workers. This amendment says that in awarding that tanker
contract the Pentagon must also consider any unfair competitive
advantage aerospace companies have. And there is no bigger unfair
advantage in the world of international aerospace than launch aid.
As you may know, Mr. President, launch aid is direct funding that has
been provided to European aerospace company Airbus from the treasuries
of European governments. It is what supports their factories and their
workers and their airplanes. It is what allows them to roll the dice
and lose. And it is what separates them from American aerospace
companies such as Boeing, which bets the company on each new airplane
line. In short, it is what allows them to stack the deck against our
American workers.
In July of this year, the World Trade Organization handed down a
ruling in a case that the United States brought against the European
Union that finally called launch aid what it is--a trade-distorting,
job-killing, unfair advantage. In what was one of our Nation's most
important trade cases to date, the WTO ruled very clearly that launch
aid is illegal. It creates an uneven playing field. It has harmed
American workers and American companies and it needs to end.
Specifically, the WTO found that European governments have provided
Airbus more than 15 billion Euros in launch aid, subsidizing every
model of aircraft ever produced by Airbus in the last 40 years,
including the model they plan to put up for our tanker competition.
They ruled that France and Germany and Spain provided more than 1
billion Euros in infrastructure and infrastructure-related grants
between 1989 and 2001, as well as another 1 billion in shared transfers
and equity infusions into Airbus. They ruled that European governments
provided over 1 billion Euros in funding between 1986 and 2005 for
research and development directed specifically to the development of
Airbus aircraft. In fact, the Lexington Institute estimates that launch
aid represents over $200 billion in today's dollars in total subsidies
to Airbus.
Launch aid has had very real consequences. It has created an uphill
battle for our workers and for American aerospace as a whole. Because
of launch aid, our workers are now not only competing against rival
companies, they are competing against the treasuries of European
governments. At the end of the day, that has meant lost jobs at our
American aerospace companies and suppliers and in the communities that
support them.
I have been speaking out against Europe's market-distorting actions
for
[[Page S7231]]
many years because I know and understand that these subsidies are not
only illegal, they are deeply unfair and anticompetitive. My home State
of Washington is home to much of our country's aerospace industry, and
I know our workers are the best in the world. On a level playing field,
they can compete and win against absolutely anyone. Unfortunately,
Airbus and the European Union have refused to allow fair competition.
Instead, they use their aerospace industry as a government-funded jobs
program, and they have used billions in illegal launch aid to fund it.
They are going to do just about anything to keep those illegal
subsidies in place. We saw evidence of that in recent days in news on
Airbus's attempts to distract and hide their job-killing subsidies
through their retaliatory WTO case against Boeing. Unfortunately for
them, it was a smokescreen that failed. News reports and analysts have
all shown that the two WTO decisions are worlds apart. In fact, leading
aerospace analyst Loren Thompson wrote after the Boeing ruling that it
``found nothing comparable to European launch aid.'' The most recent
WTO ruling really only reinforces that American aerospace workers have
been at a competitive disadvantage, and that needs to change.
Let me be clear about one thing. Our objective here is not to limit
competition; our objective is to make sure everyone can compete on a
level playing field. Airbus has made it clear they will go to any
lengths to hurt our country's aerospace industry. We need to make it
clear that we will take every action to stop them because this is not
only about the future of aerospace, right now it is about jobs that
will help our entire economy recover.
In fact, as we look for ways to stimulate job growth and keep
American companies innovating and growing, we should look no further
than this amendment. This amendment is commonsense policy. It makes
sure the U.S. Government policy translates to Pentagon policy because
the fact is that the U.S. Government, through our Trade Representative,
has taken the position that Airbus subsidies are illegal and unfair.
Yet the U.S. Department of Defense is ignoring that position as we look
now to purchase a tanker fleet, and that does not make any sense--not
for our country, not for our military, and certainly not for our
workers. The WTO made a fair decision. Airbus subsidies are illegal and
anticompetitive. Now the DOD needs to take that ruling into account.
When I talk to our aerospace workers back home in Washington State, I
want to tell them we have evened the stakes. I want them to know their
government is not looking the other way as policies continue to
undercut their job opportunities. I want them to know that while they
are working to secure our country by producing the best airplanes in
the world, their government is doing everything it can to make sure
there are fair opportunities that will keep them on the job.
I know our workers will win a fair and open competition, and I urge
the DOD to do the right thing to make this competition fair and open by
considering illegal subsidies in awarding these critical contracts.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment when we
adopt it and help us protect our American aerospace jobs as a result.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in a few hours we are going to
be voting on whether we want to take up the Defense bill. That should
be a no-brainer, for, after all, defense of the country is one of the
most important things the U.S. Government can do. We are going to
consider that. Yet we have some highly inflammatory issues that
possibly are going to derail this bill.
I have the privilege of sitting on both the Senate Armed Services
Committee and the Intelligence Committee. The provisions in this bill,
from my standpoint, are going to ensure that our service men and women
who are putting their lives on the line for this country will have the
training, the equipment, and the resources they need and deserve.
Back in February, the Secretary of Defense told our Armed Services
Committee that the Department's top priorities are ``rearming and
strengthening the nation's commitment to care for the all-volunteer
force, our greatest strategic asset'' and ``rebalancing America's
defense posture by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in
current conflicts while enhancing capabilities that may be needed in
the future.'' That is what the Secretary of Defense said. What more can
you say? That is what this bill does. This National Defense
Authorization Act is going to authorize over $700 billion in
discretionary budget authority for the programs and initiatives to
carry out what the Secretary of Defense said.
In order to carry this out for an all-volunteer force, here are some
of the things the bill will do. It will improve the quality of life for
the service members and their families, authorizing much needed
military construction and housing projects.
Here is another example: Ensure that all of the forces preparing to
deploy are trained for what they are deploying for and that their
equipment is ready so that they can succeed at combat. I remember back
in the early days of the Iraq war, I had mamas and daddies calling me
because members of the Florida National Guard were in Iraq and they did
not even have the adequate body armor. Never again for those kinds of
things. But that is another reason for us to have this bill.
Another reason: It will authorize a 1.4-percent pay raise for our
service members.
To get ready for the ongoing efforts to prevail in this fight, here
is also what the bill would do:
Counterinsurgency. It enhances our ability to go after the bad guys
in those counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, and it would
improve the ability of our military to counter nontraditional threats
such as those that now threaten us in the cyber warfare domain.
Of course, it would support the highest priority unfunded needs that
are identified by the Chiefs of Staff.
It would also authorize over $110 billion in base budget authority
for funding high-priority weapons systems. I will give an example. The
Navy's littoral combat ship allows us to get in close to shore in
modernized equipment and boats; also, the E2-D Advanced Hawkeye, the
Air Force's Joint STARS Program, and the new hot, stealthy F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter.
This bill takes several steps to enhance our capabilities to protect
our country against emerging threats, including terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This is in a subject area
of the subcommittee in Armed Services that I chair.
We are going to have an increased capability for manufacturing and
testing capabilities to reduce the time required to produce high-demand
items such as body and vehicle armor, the IED jammers, Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected Vehicles--that is the MRAP vehicles--and to modernize
Department test capability facilities to ensure new weapons systems
meet the requirements of that warfighter who is out there on the
ground, facing the threat.
In this bill is also funding for advanced technologies for weapons
systems and further R&D to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels in our
military machine.
It is going to add $113 million for unfunded requirements that were
identified by the commander of the Special Operations Command for
ground mobility vehicles, deployable communications equipment, thermal
and night vision goggles, special operations combat assault rifles, and
nonlethal weapons technologies. This is the new kind of war and combat
we are facing. It is often these highly specialized, trained units that
are going in under stealth with highly sophisticated weapons and
equipment to go after a very stealthy enemy who does not wear a uniform
and who blends right into the local population.
This bill also goes after getting us improved in the nonproliferation
programs.
There is so much in this bill. Yet we are facing not even getting the
60 votes this afternoon to be able to proceed with the Nation's
defense. Why is that? Because there is a provision in here, that was
voted out of the Armed Services Committee, on the repeal of the
standing policy in the military of don't ask, don't tell--a repeal of
it once the
[[Page S7232]]
Department of Defense completes a comprehensive review of the repeal.
The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs--once that review is done under the bill--must certify to
Congress that they can implement the repeal while maintaining
readiness, effectiveness, and unit cohesion. This provision obviously
has received a great deal of attention. I believe that proceeding in
this way--very cautiously--will allow the DOD to examine all the
implications of repealing this policy while moving forward with this
change.
It is clear that this Defense bill is a key piece of the legislation
for our military. For 48 consecutive years, the Senate has completed
work on a Defense authorization bill. This year, a year when we have
forces engaged in ground combat as we speak, is not the year for the
Senate to suddenly say: No, we are not going to pass this kind of
legislation.
I urge the Senate this afternoon on this vote to allow us to proceed
to the discussion and the amending of the Defense bill.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
____________________