[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 173 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10960-S10963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Defense Level Playing Field Act

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to call on the 
Senate to move and pass H.R. 6540, which is the Defense Level Playing 
Field Act, a bill which was passed overwhelmingly by the House of 
Representatives yesterday.
  This is a bill that is identical to a bipartisan provision I have 
introduced here in the Senate with Senators Brownback, Cantwell, and 
others from States that know the value of American aerospace. It is a 
bill that will require the Pentagon to take into account illegal 
subsidies to foreign companies in our country, and that will finally 
deliver an even playing field in our procurement process.
  But above all, this is a jobs bill. It is about protecting skilled, 
family-wage jobs, manufacturing jobs, and engineering jobs--jobs with 
technical skills and expertise that are passed down from one generation 
to the next; jobs that not only support our families during a very 
difficult economic time but are also helping to keep our communities 
above water. These are jobs in communities in Kansas, in Connecticut, 
in California, and in my home State of Washington. They are jobs that 
support small businesses, they pay people's mortgages, and they create 
economic opportunity. These jobs right now are at risk. Why? Because of 
illegal subsidies that undercut our workers and create an uneven 
playing field for America's aerospace workers.
  This is a commonsense, straightforward way to protect American 
aerospace jobs from unfairly subsidized European competition. It is a 
bill 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 bill says that in 
awarding that critical tanker contract, the Pentagon must consider any 
unfair competitive advantage aerospace companies have, and there is no 
bigger unfair advantage right now in the world of international 
aerospace than launch aid.
  As my colleagues may know, launch aid is direct funding that has been 
provided to the 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 price their 
airplanes far below those that are made here in the United States and 
still turn a profit. It is what allows them to literally role the dice 
and lose on a product and what separates them from American aerospace 
companies, such as Boeing, that bet the company on each new airplane 
line they produce. In short, it is what allows them to stack the decks 
against 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 really is: a trade-
distorting, job-killing, unfair advantage. That is what the WTO said. 
It is 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 companies, and it 
needs to end.
  Specifically, the WTO found that European governments have provided 
Airbus with more than 15 billion Euros in launch aid, subsidizing every 
model of aircraft ever produced by Airbus in the last 40 years, 
including, by the way, the A330--the very model they are now putting 
forward in the tanker competition. The WTO 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 billion in share transfers and equity infusions into Airbus. 
They ruled that European governments provided over 1 billion in Euros 
in funding between 1986 and 2005 for research and development directed 
specifically to the development of Airbus aircraft. In fact, the 
Lexington Institute states that launch aid represents over $200 billion 
in today's dollars in total subsidies to Airbus.
  Launch aid has very real consequences. It has created an uphill 
battle for our American workers and 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

[[Page S10961]]

meant lost jobs at our American aerospace companies and suppliers and 
the communities that support them.
  I have been speaking out against Europe's market-distorting actions 
for many years because I understand that these subsidies are not only 
illegal, they are deeply unfair and anticompetitive.
  My home State of Washington is, of course, 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 anybody. But, 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 use 
billions in illegal launch aid to fund it.
  So let me be clear about one thing. The objective of this bill that 
was passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives yesterday is 
not to limit competition; it 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 we will take every action to stop them because this is not only 
about the future of aerospace; it is about jobs right now that will 
help our economy recover. In fact, as we look at ways to stimulate job 
growth and keep American companies innovating and growing, we shouldn't 
look any further than this bill.
  This bill is a commonsense policy. It makes sure 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, on the other hand, 
the U.S. Department of Defense is ignoring that position as we look to 
purchase a new 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 Department of Defense needs to take that 
ruling into account.
  When I go home and talk to our aerospace workers in Washington State, 
I want to be able 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 jobs and their opportunities. I want them to 
know that while they are working to secure our country by producing the 
best airplane in the world, their government is doing everything it can 
to make sure fair opportunities are there that will keep them on the 
job.
  It is time to take these job-killing subsidies into account. It is 
the right thing to do for our workers, for our economy, and the future 
of our airspace industry.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6540

  So I ask, as if in legislative session and as if in morning business, 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 6540, which was received from the House and is at 
the desk; that the bill be read three times and passed; the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; 
and any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the loyalty of my 
colleague from Washington for the Boeing facility that is there. I just 
want to say that other workers are involved, including 48,000 new jobs 
that would be created if the plant in Alabama were to be the one 
selected in this competition.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I would note that we 
voted a number of years ago unanimously to have a competition. There 
are only two companies in the world that can make this kind of 
aircraft. It is a commercial aircraft, not a highly sophisticated 
defense system such as a fighter. The EADS team committed to build that 
in America--bringing jobs not just to Alabama but jobs all over the 
Nation, far more around the Nation than just in Alabama--and to create 
a third major world aircraft facility. Congress asked that the bids be 
competitively let and that these two competitors be given a chance to 
submit the best proposal.
  I am highly convinced that the EADS aircraft is superior--is larger, 
it is newer--and more effective in the role it is asked to fulfill.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would just ask what the order is at 
this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator sought recognition after he 
objected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The unanimous consent agreement was that the Senator 
from Texas would proceed after I had yielded the floor, which I had not 
yielded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, the Senator from Alabama was the 
only person who sought recognition.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe there was an agreement that 
the Senator from Texas follow my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was an order, but there was no 
objection. There was no one who sought recognition.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will wrap up, briefly, if I could.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator from Alabama wants to finish his 
objection--
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is 
that the Senator from Washington had 10 minutes. My understanding is 
she had completed that 10 minutes; am I incorrect on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Her time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I didn't hear the Chair say that. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask the Senator from Alabama, I thought he was 
objecting on Senator Murray's time, and I was next in the unanimous 
consent. My question is, is he finished with his objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I wish 1 additional minute to wrap up, if I could, and 
then I will yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, then I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I have the floor, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, after this competition has been going 
on for quite a number of years, and both parties have been very 
seriously competing for this contract, it is expected to be awarded in 
March of next year. The Defense Department has considered every one of 
these issues, including the WTO issue. The lawyers talked about it and 
we have talked about it in the Senate and the House.
  At this very last minute, on the eve of awarding the competition, a 
House bill was passed without any debate. We have not discussed it or 
had a hearing on it. It should not be approved. I object.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are asking for a level playing field 
with a bill that passed the House. This is a discussion we have had 
many times. It says that illegal subsidies from any company should be 
taken into account on a deal in front of the Pentagon.
  I will stand anytime and fight for fairness and competition. I am 
sorry this has been objected to, because it meant our country would 
have a fair competition.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak on the START treaty. 
I spoke on the floor Saturday stating my concerns about this treaty and 
the need to address a number of very important issues. I had hoped that 
amendments that had been offered would be able to clarify the 
position--the United States position--on this treaty.
  I have listened to the debate. I have watched many amendments go 
down. The treaty supporters have said that these amendments are deal 
killers,

[[Page S10962]]

treaty killers. I disagree. I believe everybody has been sincere, but I 
am not persuaded that the Senate's role to advise and consent to 
treaties has successfully finetuned the understanding on our part, if 
we accept this treaty, nor the Russian positions--have they been 
clarified with our objections or disagreements with the Russian 
position.
  I understand it would have made it hard for the administration to 
amend the text. But even amendments that would try to amend the 
preamble, or even the ratification resolution that would clarify the 
United States position, have caused me great pause. For instance, when 
we are talking about missile defense, former Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, said:

       Russians tend to interpret every utterance as binding 
     commitment.

  She went on to write:

       The Russians need to understand that the U.S. will use the 
     full range of American technology and talent to improve our 
     ability to intercept and destroy the ballistic missiles of 
     hostile countries.

  I am concerned that this treaty still has a lot of misunderstanding 
about the United States missile defense capability. I am concerned that 
our capability, with the understanding of Russians, would be 
restricted. Russia and the United States each have issued unilateral 
statements when they signed the New START that clarified their position 
on the relationship between START and missile defense. Russia stated:

       The treaty can operate and be viable only if the United 
     States refrains from developing its missile defense 
     capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

  I think we should state clearly in the resolution to ratify that it 
is not the position of the United States to place any limitations on 
missile defense. The President wrote a letter saying he disagreed with 
the Russian position and, yet, Senator McCain offered an amendment that 
would have stricken language in the preamble of the treaty that would 
have made it clear what the United States position was, and that 
amendment was not adopted by this body.
  As we speak, I don't believe Russia is our enemy. This is a 10-year 
treaty. We don't know 10 years down the road how relationships might 
change. I believe our relationship with Russia is important, but there 
are rogue nations in the world that are hostile to the United States, 
which are working in earnest to get nuclear capability and possibly 
already have it, plus warheads to put those nuclear weapons on.
  With the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea, or Pakistan, 
which is our ally, which has a fragile government, or even Venezuela, 
which is working with Iran and is certainly within our hemisphere, it 
would be unthinkable to have any kind of miscommunication about the 
United States capability to control its own defense capabilities. That 
is exactly what the Russian statement said we could not do.
  U.S. planning and force requirements may have to change in the next 
10 years and, frankly, I think they ought to be going forward right now 
to ensure that we can withstand any kind of warhead, nuclear or 
otherwise, that would come in from rogue nations.
  That in itself is enough for me to say we have not fulfilled our 
responsibility under the Constitution for advice to the President on 
treaties. That is our solemn responsibility, and I do not think we have 
been successfully able to do that because we have been blocked on every 
amendment, calling them deal killers.
  I think a strong New START is in our best interest. But I believe 
that this treaty does not address other areas of concern I have voiced 
as well. I believe this treaty could further be improved by increasing 
the number of type one and type two inspections, as was attempted by 
the Inhofe amendment that was defeated yesterday.

  For instance, we know there are loose nukes that have come from 
Russian arsenals in the past, because the Russians have not had a clear 
control, or list of, or don't seem to be totally firm about where all 
of their arsenal is, and they don't seem to have the accountability. So 
the loose nukes, it has been reported, have shown up in other places, 
such as, for instance, North Korea. So I think verification becomes 
more important, to get a true idea of exactly what the Russians have, 
so there can be an accountability going forward to assure that whatever 
number are in whatever place would always stay the same, unless they 
are part of the drawdown.
  I think the verification amendment Senator Inhofe had that was 
defeated would have improved our capability to understand exactly what 
was out there that might loosely go to Iran or North Korea, with whom 
the Russians have relationships, though we do not.
  Former Secretary of State James Baker described the treaty's 
verification regime as weaker than its predecessor. I agree with his 
comment, and I hope we can improve the situation. To be fair, Secretary 
Baker supports the treaty. But he did recognize its shortcomings, and I 
think that should have been addressed by the Senate, without fear of 
what the Russians might say about our capability to defend against 
threats, not from Russia necessarily, other than the haplessness of not 
knowing for sure where your nuclear weapons are--I don't think Russia 
is our enemy. I want a relationship with Russia.
  The missile defense we were not able to even clarify in the 
resolution of ratification causes me great concern. The verification 
not being as adequate as I think we need, and then the modernization, 
which we also address in other amendments, I think, are also 
problematic. I believe we must know our nuclear warheads could be used 
in the worst-case circumstance, because I think that is a deterrent.
  Because of these things, I am going to vote no today on the 
ratification of the treaty. I think the Senate could have improved the 
understanding of this treaty. I think we could have strengthened it 
with real amendments that would have strengthened even what the 
President said in his letter to the Senate, saying that he disagreed 
with the Russian interpretation. But then when we tried to put that in 
writing, that didn't pass. So I believe we should not pass this treaty 
today. I think we can fulfill our responsibility for advice and consent 
and have a more bipartisan passing of the resolution. I think we need a 
good relationship with Russia. I think we need to protect, at all 
costs, the United States unilateral capability for missile defense for 
our country against other nations. I don't think Russia is a threat, 
but I do think rogue nations that have nuclear capabilities are. I 
think the symbiotic relationship between Venezuela and Iran is a very 
real threat to the United States. I think we need to start preparing 
more carefully about that.
  I know my time is up. I appreciate the time to state my reasons for 
voting against this and hope that when it passes--which I think it 
will--we will be more firm in clarifying with the Russians our view of 
our national security interests.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, first, if I can interrupt for a moment 
before the Senator from North Dakota speaks, according to the prior 
order. I want to inform Senators that it is now 1:15. We are awaiting 
language which is forthcoming relatively soon on the 9/11 issue. I 
think it is the intention of the majority leader to vote very quickly 
after that unanimous consent agreement comes together. That means we 
could have a vote, conceivably, on the final passage of the resolution 
of ratification on the treaty somewhere--this is a guess--within the 
vicinity of 1:45 to 2 o'clock. That is a guess. Senator Kyl I know 
wanted to speak prior to that taking place. We are trying to preserve 
that within the order. That said, I yield to the Senator from North 
Dakota.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we expect to have the necessary papers to 
complete the consent agreement within the next 15 minutes. It is 1:15 
now, so we hope by 1:30. Sometimes Senate time is not exactly right, 
but we are getting very close to being able to do this consent 
agreement. It has been typed. We are waiting for the papers to come 
from the Hart Building.
  We want everyone to be patient. We know how anxious everyone is to 
complete the business of this Congress. Just everyone understand it 
should be not much longer.

[[Page S10963]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I was not going to speak again, but I 
was prompted to by my colleague from Alabama, a friend and someone for 
whom I have great respect. The presentation by my colleague from 
Alabama suggested that President Obama is moving in the direction of 
disarming us, the implication is that of injuring our national security 
by proposing that we have fewer nuclear weapons. Let me make a point 
that I think is so important for the record.
  I hope it is not now or ever considered a source of weakness for this 
country to aspire to have a planet with fewer nuclear weapons. It ought 
to be a source of strength that we understand it becomes our burden as 
a world leader--an economic leader and nuclear power--to try to reduce 
the number of nuclear weapons on this Earth.
  This President has not proposed anything that would injure our 
national security. He is not proposing anything that is unilateral. He 
has negotiated and his team has negotiated a very strong arms reduction 
treaty with the Russians.
  I know there has been great discussion about modernization, whether 
there is enough money, about why tactical nuclear weapons were not 
included, the issue of whether it limits us with respect to missile 
defense. All of those issues have been answered. All have been 
responded to.
  The question, it seems to me, for us now and for all Americans, and 
particularly those who serve in Congress in the future, is will we be a 
world leader in pushing for a reduction in the number of nuclear 
weapons on this planet?
  There are some 25,000 nuclear weapons on this planet. The loss of 
just one of those weapons, into the hands of a terrorist or rogue 
nation who might then explode it in a major city on Earth would change 
everything.
  My colleagues are probably tired of hearing me say it, but in my desk 
I have kept a piece of a Soviet Union bomber, a very small piece of a 
wing strut from a Soviet Union bomber. We did not shoot it down. We 
negotiated that bomber down by paying money to saw the wings off.
  Nuclear arms reduction treaties work. We know they work. There are 
Russian submarines that were not destroyed in battle. We ground them up 
and took them apart. The wings were sawed off bombers, and they were 
sold for scrap. Nuclear missiles in silos with nuclear warheads aimed 
at American cities are gone.
  I will give an example. One was in Ukraine. Now sunflower seeds adorn 
that pasture where there was a missile with a nuclear weapon aimed at 
America.
  We know these arms reduction treaties work because we have seen them 
work. Fewer nuclear weapons, fewer delivery vehicles, bombers, 
submarines, missiles--we know this works.
  My colleague seemed to suggest that it would be a horrible thing if 
the entire world were rid of nuclear weapons. I hope that every Senator 
would aspire to have that be the case, a world in which there was not 
one weapon left, for almost surely every offensive weapon on this 
planet has always been used. We need to be very concerned about the 
number of nuclear weapons, the spread of nuclear weapons, the need, the 
desire for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons. That is why these 
treaties and these negotiations on arms reduction are so unbelievably 
important.
  Never has it been more important because now there is a new threat. 
They do not wear uniforms. They do not belong to one country. It is the 
terrorist threat. And they strive mightily to acquire nuclear weapons.
  This treaty negotiated at the start by the previous President and 
concluded by this President, in my judgment, strengthens this country, 
represents our best national security interests.
  I ask the question of anyone who believes that it is a threat for us 
to begin reducing nuclear weapons through arms negotiations with others 
who have nuclear weapons: Who, if not us, will lead the way to do that? 
If not us, who? Is there another country they think will aspire to 
provide leadership to reduce the number of nuclear weapons? If there 
is, tell us the name because we all know better than that.
  This responsibility falls on our shoulders. We are the leading 
nuclear power on this Earth. It is our responsibility, it is this 
country's responsibility to lead. I don't ever want anybody to suggest 
it is some sort of weakness for this President or any President to 
engage in arms reduction negotiations. That is a source of strength.
  This treaty was negotiated carefully. I was on the national security 
working group. We had briefing after briefing in top-secret venues. 
This treaty was carefully negotiated. It represents our best interests. 
It represents a reduction of nuclear weapons, a reduction of delivery 
vehicles and represents, in my judgment, another step in reducing the 
nuclear threat. It is not even a giant step, but it certainly is a step 
in the right direction.
  This represents our best national security interests, and this 
President has demonstrated, yes, he wants a world with fewer nuclear 
weapons. He wants a world, as would I, with no nuclear weapons at some 
point. But this President would never allow negotiations or never allow 
circumstances in which this country is unarmed or unprepared or unable 
to meet its national security needs. He has not done that, not in this 
treaty, and will not do it in the future.
  I did want to stand up and say that because of the comments earlier 
by the Senator who suggested there is some sort of weakness for a 
country that aspires to have a reduction of nuclear weapons on this 
planet.
  Let me finally say, I have spoken at length on this floor about the 
severity of losing even just one nuclear weapon. I have told the story 
about a CIA agent code-named Dragonfire who reported 1 month after 9/11 
that a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon had been stolen from Russia and that 
nuclear weapon had been smuggled into New York City and was to be 
detonated. There was an apoplectic seizure in this town about it 
because no one knew what to do about it. They did not even notify the 
mayor of New York.
  They discovered a month later that was probably not a credible piece 
of information. But as they did the diagnosis of it, they discovered it 
is plausible someone could have acquired a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon 
from Russia, it was plausible; if they had done that, they could have 
smuggled it into an American city and if terrorists did that they could 
have detonated it. Then we are not talking about 3,000 deaths, we are 
talking about 100,000, 200,000 deaths.
  The work we have done in so many areas, the work in this 
administration, let me say, to secure loose nuclear materials, 
circumstances where plutonium or highly enriched uranium in the size of 
a liter or, in one case, in the size of a small can of soda, enough to 
kill tens and tens of thousands of people with a nuclear weapon--this 
is serious business. At a time when we debate a lot of issues--serious 
and not so serious--this is serious business.
  I think the work that has been done by the chairman and ranking 
member in recent days--I watched a lot of this and watched it over this 
year--is extraordinary work. But so too is the work by this President, 
by the negotiators. My colleague described the folks at the State 
Department who had a significant role as well.
  Let us not ever think it is a source of weakness to be negotiating 
verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons among those who possess them. 
That is a source of strength, and it is important for our kids and 
grandchildren who can succeed by continuing to do that with treaties 
that make the best sense for this country's national security 
interests.
  I see the Senator from Massachusetts does not yet have a unanimous 
consent request, but I know all my colleagues are anxious to see one.
  I yield the floor, and I expect, as the majority leader indicated, 
within the next half hour or so we will be voting, and I think that is 
good news. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.