[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3504-3505]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 3505]]

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.

                          ____________________