[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 172 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8798-H8801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFENSE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD ACT
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 6540) to require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a
contract for the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider
any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6540
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Defense Level Playing Field
Act''.
SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN
EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR KC-X AERIAL REFUELING
AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.
(a) Requirement To Consider Unfair Competitive Advantage.--
In awarding a contract for the KC-X aerial refueling aircraft
program (or any successor to that program), the Secretary of
Defense shall, in evaluating any offers submitted to the
Department of Defense in response to a solicitation for
offers for such program, consider any unfair competitive
advantage that an offeror may possess.
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after submission of
offers in response to any such solicitation, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees
a report on any unfair competitive advantage that any offeror
may possess.
(c) Requirement To Take Findings Into Account in Award of
Contract.--In awarding a contract for the KC-X aerial
refueling aircraft program (or any successor to that
program), the Secretary of Defense shall take into account
the findings of the report submitted under subsection (b).
(d) Unfair Competitive Advantage.--In this section, the
term ``unfair competitive advantage'', with respect to an
offer for a contract, means a situation in which the cost of
development, production, or manufacturing is not fully borne
by the offeror for such contract.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have another great bipartisan success today, at the closing day of
our Congress, and I want to thank Representatives Larsen, Blunt,
Tiahrt, Moran, and McDermott for bringing this bipartisan bill to the
floor. This bill is the Defense Level Playing Field Act, which will
incorporate in standalone legislation an amendment we adopted with huge
bipartisan support previously by a vote of 410-8 on the defense
authorization bill.
This bill is very important to bring a level of fairness and
competitiveness from a job creation perspective to the tanker contract,
which is now one of the largest procurement contracts in American
history, a $35 billion contract providing for 179, and ultimately 400,
aerial refueling planes, which will replace the Eisenhower-era tankers,
which is so critical to our Nation's skeleton and backbone of our
Nation's defense.
I note the basic thrust of this bill is to make sure that in our
procurement process that we have fairness--fairness both to the law and
fairness to the American workers, who are so successful. And one of the
bidders we hope to be so successful with is the Boeing 767 platform,
which will be fully capable of continuing the tradition of American
provision of the very backbone of our American fleet and providing our
tankers.
I want to make four points about what this bill will do. Basically,
what this bill will do is require the Defense Department to take into
consideration any unfair competitive advantage of any of the bidders in
this contract. What basically this bill will do is require that the
Pentagon take into consideration any unfair competitive advantage
enjoyed by either of the bidders, Boeing or the Airbus consortium, and
that is defined as costs of development, production, or manufacturing
that are not fully borne by the offeror of any such contract.
Obviously, what gave rise to this amendment was the fact that we have
found that there were over $5 billion of illegal, unfair competitive
advantage that has been enjoyed by one of the contractors, the Airbus
consortium.
But I want to make four points about what our bill does. Number one,
our bill basically says that we need a fair competition. We are happy
to compete as Americans. We love competition. We're happy to compete,
but we need to do it on a level playing field. And this bill is very
fair because it says that any unfair competitive advantage of either of
the bidders needs to be taken into consideration in this bill. We love
competition, but it needs to be fair.
Second, this bill is fair to both sides, Boeing and Airbus, America
and Europe, because it requires an unfair competitive advantage from
either bidder to be taken into consideration. And it is WTO-compliant.
We were careful to draft the bill with that in mind.
Third, this is an enormous contract, and there have been enormous
unfair competitive advantages bestowed on one of the bidders--frankly,
Airbus. The $5 billion of illegal subsidies that we have found come out
to somewhere between 27 and $5 million an airplane. This is an
extraordinarily unfair advantage that one of the bidders has been
given, and we need to take that into consideration.
Fourth, the job importance of this issue cannot be overstated. It is
estimated that 62,000 jobs could hang in the balance if we allow these
illegal subsidies not to be remedied in this procurement contract.
American workers have built the best airplanes. They're ready to do it.
And we're not going to allow tens of thousands of jobs to be lost based
on illegal subsidization by our friends in Europe.
Now we have standalone legislation. We look forward to giving the
Senate every opportunity to act on this.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H8799]]
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to support the legislation introduced by the gentleman from
Washington, and I appreciate his explanation for what this legislation
does. I am here to encourage my colleagues both in the House and the
Senate to support this legislation to level the playing field in the
Air Force tanker competition. This is an unending story, presumably. It
has gone on for a long time. But at this stage in the process, we need
to make certain that there is fairness. We need fairness for our
workers, fairness for American companies, and fairness for the American
taxpayer.
Earlier this year, the World Trade Organization found that European
governments are guilty of providing nearly $6 billion in illegal
subsidies to Airbus to develop aircraft. These subsidies can put our
American workers at a disadvantage in the world marketplace. Tens of
thousands of U.S. aerospace jobs have already been lost overseas; the
Department of Defense, we risk job loss in the $35 billion tanker
competition with these subsidies. In Wichita, Kansas, alone, where the
finishing center for the new Boeing tanker will take place, the tanker
contract could mean 7,500 jobs.
Common sense today tells us that when we are so desperate for
employment in the United States, we need to make certain that the
competition we are engaged in is based upon fairness. But even with the
WTO decision, the Department of Defense has ignored the facts. The
Pentagon must not be working against millions of Americans who are
looking for work, nor should our own government ask American taxpayers
to foot the bill for a European economic stimulus.
The Defense Level Playing Field Act tells the Pentagon it can no
longer close its eyes to the unfair European subsidies. This bill says
that the tanker bidding process must be conducted fairly. Its intent is
to require the DOD to take into account the price impact of illegal
European subsidies. It makes sure that there is a level playing field
so that no bidder, whether it's foreign or domestic, has an unfair
competitive advantage.
American aerospace workers are ready to support our men and women in
uniform with the best tanker, and they must be given a fair opportunity
to do so. Please join me in standing up for the American worker and for
the U.S. taxpayer by voting favorably for the Defense Level Playing
Field Act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. I want to congratulate Mr. Inslee and his leadership on
this measure.
Madam Speaker, in a few short weeks, according to the latest news
from the Pentagon, this tanker contract is expected to be awarded.
Again, I don't think anyone can understate the impact over the decades
that final outcome will have on the U.S. economy, particularly our
aerospace industrial base.
{time} 1050
As has been mentioned by prior speakers, the first tranche of
contracts will be about $35 billion. In total, it is estimated to be
about $100 billion just in manufacturing. Given the age of the existing
tanker planes, the maintenance and repair work is probably another $100
billion if you look over the lifetime of this plane's existence.
So, for the American industrial base, the decision which the Pentagon
is on the verge of announcing will have an impact decades hence, and it
is extremely important for the American taxpayers that they be given
total assurance that this decision is going to be made fairly and with
the best interests of our country at heart.
If you would just step back and look at other weapons procurement
programs, whether it is nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, the
Joint Strike Fighter, the notion that those contracts, that those
weapons platforms would be awarded to foreign manufacturers that
receive subsidies from their governments would be just laughable; but
for some reason, in this instance, the Department of Defense has just
turned a blind eye to the obvious unfairness which this bid process has
produced.
So, again, what this very simple measure seeks to do is to put a big
red warning flag up to the Pentagon to say, when this decision is made,
for the sake of the American taxpayers, subsidies that have been found
to be illegal will be taken into account in the final decision.
I urge strong support for this measure.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation that will protect
American jobs and ensure competitive fairness in the contract bid for
the next aerial refueling tanker.
Madam Speaker, in May, the House voted overwhelmingly, 410-8, on a
similar amendment to the defense authorization bill to require the
Pentagon to take into account the illegal subsidies that have distorted
this competition from day one.
The choice for the next-generation tanker contract is clear. We can
give the contract to an American company, Boeing, and support an
estimated 50,000-plus good, high-skilled jobs across this country, or
we can give the contract to a European company, Airbus, thus creating
tens of thousands of jobs in Europe. With unemployment where it is
today, this should be a no-brainer.
In fact, since the last time this issue was brought to the floor, the
WTO made a final ruling in the trade case brought by our government
against the European Union. It ruled that billions of dollars in
illegal European Government ``launch aid'' subsidies have been used by
Airbus to develop every aircraft it has built. More than $5 billion of
these subsidies made it possible for Airbus to launch the A330 it is
offering for the tanker.
We need to ensure a fair, open, and transparent tanker competition.
Our companies and our workers can compete against any in the world when
there is a level playing field. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation ensuring that the Pentagon takes into account these illegal
Airbus subsidies. We need to provide the best tanker for the Air Force,
and we must not send these critical defense manufacturing jobs
overseas.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, once again, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. INSLEE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues by admitting that competition is
good, and I rise in support of competition.
Yet I also recognize as a member of the Manufacturing Caucus that
Americans are ready and clamoring to build, and they want to produce
and create. As they do that with their sophisticated technology, they
create jobs. So I believe it is unfair that when there is a competition
that our companies, in fact in our own country at the Pentagon, are
competing against those companies that are subsidized.
So I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 6540, which does not
in any way hamper the ability of the Pentagon to do its work, but
indicates that we can build the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program
by a company that we have, in this instance Boeing, of which I am very
familiar, having worked extensively with it in the NASA Human Space
Exploration Program.
Let us build again. Let us manufacture again. Yes, we will create
jobs, but we will create and reinforce the genius of our young people
who are being trained and of those scientists who have created topnotch
technology.
To be on the front lines, men and women who are in the United States
military need the best equipment to be able to create jobs and bring
manufacturing back in this country. We need to have the competitiveness
and an even playing field. No subsidies. Boeing can do it. We need to
have the Pentagon recognize that America is back in the saddle again.
We are building quality products, and we need to be able to build the
KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft.
[[Page H8800]]
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time,
Madam Speaker.
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I want to put in a good word for my
comrade in arms, Todd Tiahrt. He isn't with us right at the moment, but
he did great work on this--he has had a great career--as well as Mr.
Larsen.
A couple of closing comments.
I come from a Boeing family. My uncle's cousins have worked with
Boeing products from the 707, to the 737, to the 727, to the 747. Now
they hope to work on the 767 tanker product. So this is a hometown team
issue for me, but it is an international issue as to whether or not we
are going to have rules when we compete with our friends across the
pond, and we are happy to compete no matter what team we are on. This
simply insists that America will follow the rules in a fair
competition. It is the right thing to do.
So, in that regard, Madam Speaker, I will note that sometimes
Congress reserves the best in its legislation and the best in its
speakers pro tem for the last, and I think that this is the best in
both ways.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the
comments that have been made today on the House floor.
Economically, there is no more important issue in the State of Kansas
than the success or at least the opportunity to have success in this
contract bidding process. It has been a long time that we have been
waiting, and I hope the gentleman who spoke earlier who indicated that
we are on the verge of a decision is accurate. This would be a great
development, not only for the people of our State but for the people of
our country if we learn that there are jobs to be created and that
there is a manufacturing base to be further developed in the United
States.
I very much appreciate the gentleman from Washington's indication
that this bill is about a level playing field. It is not about awarding
the contract. It is about giving fairness to the bidding process.
I hope that we have the opportunity, if the Senate will also pass
this legislation again on the verge of a decision, to once again remind
the Department of Defense of their responsibility to the will, not only
of Congress for a level playing, but to the rightness of this cause, to
the sense of fairness, for the right of justice, and for building the
opportunity of job creation in this country, not only today but
tomorrow as well.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
(Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I apologize to the House for being out of breath, but
apparently this bill was brought up on the floor at the last minute and
without anybody's knowledge. I don't know if it has been discussed, but
I sit on the Armed Services Committee, and I would like to ask my
friend from Kansas, if I may, Madam Speaker, Has the professional staff
on the Armed Services Committee at all given their thoughts on the
implication of this bill?
I can answer the question. I shouldn't have thrown it to you. The
answer is ``no.''
The answer is ``no'' because it hasn't gone through regular order.
This bill is not going through regular order. It is amazing to me that
we are bringing something forward today, as you have been saying
already, that has great implications to the national security of this
country. The Armed Services Committee and the requisite subcommittees
have not had an opportunity to talk about this particular piece of
legislation.
{time} 1100
We heard that this may come up last week. It didn't come up last
week. Unfortunately, some of the Members who are very involved in this
contracting issue had no idea this was coming to the floor today. I
speak on their behalf. Some of those very Members are on airplanes
flying to Washington, trying to come up here to be able to debate this
particular piece of legislation.
But, again, it's business as usual for this House and in the waning
days of the 111th Congress that we would bring pieces of legislation
forward that impact Members all across this country, yet not give them
the opportunity to come to the floor in a timely fashion and express
their views.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against this particular piece of
legislation.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I would point out to the House that an amendment to the defense
authorization bill of a similar nature passed the House of
Representatives by a vote of 408-10.
I would let the gentleman from Washington know that I have no other
speakers and am prepared to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. INSLEE. I just wanted to address Mr. Miller's concern, wanted to
advise him that we have been in discussions for the last several days
with the current minority staff on the committee, who have all been
well-advised about our intention to bring this in one way or another,
either by UC or suspension, to the floor, and we've appreciated their
cooperation in doing that.
I also want to advise Mr. Miller that this is exactly the same
language we did vote for, including the gentleman from Florida, in its
previous incarnation in the Defense authorization bill. I hope that I
can say this is a fairly noncontroversial issue in the House, and we
hope that when the light of public interest is shone on the Senate that
they will act on this as well on behalf of America.
Madam Speaker, I would reserve my time unless the gentleman has no
further speakers.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the gentleman from Washington for his
comments today and look forward to this bill's passage. I encourage my
colleagues to vote for it.
I, too, would like to recognize the work of my colleague from Kansas
(Mr. Tiahrt) in his efforts on this topic over a long period of time
and appreciate his leadership on behalf of the people of Kansas on this
and many other issues.
Mr. HARPER. Madam Speaker, I was unable to participate during floor
debate regarding H.R. 6540, The Defense Level Playing Field Act of
2010. I would like to place my statement into the Record:
It is now four days before Christmas and the Air Force is nearing
completion of its evaluation of multiple offers to replace our aging
tanker aircraft. We are in the ninth year of this effort to award a
contract to replace the Air Force's existing tanker aircraft that have
an average age of 50 years in service. I would remind my colleagues
that we have airmen and airwomen of our Air Force risking their lives
every day to perform the refueling mission across the globe in aircraft
that were built and delivered when Dwight Eisenhower was President of
the United States.
Why are we considering this legislation at this time? Do we dare take
action on legislation, four days before Christmas, without proper
Committee review, that will delay replacement of these aircraft? Are we
being responsible to the men and women in uniform by bypassing
completely the House Armed Services Committee? Are we, by considering
adoption of this bill, creating a precedent for Congressional
interference in an ongoing competition?
I would ask my colleagues--has anyone asked the Secretary of Defense
if this legislation is needed? Has anyone asked Secretary Gates or the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force how long it would further delay this
contract award in the event it became law?
This House should not be here today, considering legislation of this
kind without proper review and without full knowledge of its impact.
The men and women serving in uniform, flying 50-year old aircraft,
deserve better than to have this House--at the last stages of this
competition--undertake an action which will further delay this contract
moving forward.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is now four days before
Christmas, and the United States Air Force is nearing completion of its
evaluation of multiple offers for replacement tanker aircraft. We are
now in the ninth year of effort to award a contract for the replacement
of tanker aircraft that have an average age of 50 years in service. I
would like to remind my colleagues that the men and women of our Air
Force are risking their lives every day to perform the refueling
mission across the globe in aircraft that were built and delivered when
Ike Eisenhower was President of the United States!
How dare we take action, in the waning days of this Congress, without
proper committee review, that will delay replacement of these aircraft?
The men and women serving in uniform, flying 50-year old aircraft,
deserve
[[Page H8801]]
better than to have this House--acting on behalf of one company, during
the last stages of this competition--undertake an action, which will
further delay this contract from moving forward.
I would ask my colleagues--has anyone asked the Secretary of Defense
if this legislation is needed? Has anyone asked Secretary Gates or
General Schwartz how long it would further delay this contract award in
the event it becomes law? Are we, by considering adoption of this bill,
creating a precedent for Congressional interference in an ongoing
competition? It is absurd bringing this bill to the House floor while
the impact of this legislation has yet to be reviewed and weighed.
This House should not be here today, considering legislation of this
kind without proper review and without full knowledge of its impact. We
certainly should not do so simply because one company--based in
Washington State--thinks that they need to change the evaluation
metrics at the last minute. If they have no airplane flying that can
compete fairly, they should conduct their business better--and this
House should refrain from interfering in an ongoing competition. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
MR. MORAN of Kansas. I yield back the balance of my time
Mr. INSLEE. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6540.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________