[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12562-12567]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy 
     and Job Creation Act of 2008.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, E. Benjamin Nelson, Maria Cantwell, 
           Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders, Daniel K. Akaka, Robert 
           Menendez, Ron Wyden, Debbie Stabenow, Blanche L. 
           Lincoln, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard Durbin, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss my 
vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6049, the Energy 
and Job Creation Act of 2008.
  H.R. 6049 would revive important tax provisions that expired at the 
end of 2007 and extend provisions that are set to expire at the end of 
2008. I support extension of the R&D tax credit, teacher expenses 
deduction, tuition deduction, accelerated depreciation for leasehold 
and restaurant improvements, the renewable energy tax incentives, and 
many other important provisions in this package.
  In addition, the bill includes a provision that I introduced, S. 814, 
which would allow attorneys to deduct reimbursable court costs and 
expenses in

[[Page 12563]]

the same tax period in which they are paid or incurred. I strongly 
support this provision and have urged Chairman Baucus and Ranking 
Member Grassley to include it in this bill.
  While the House bill, H.R. 6049, does not address the alternative 
minimum tax, AMT, it is my understanding that a Baucus substitute 
amendment will include a 1-year AMT ``patch,'' without offsets, to 
prevent millions of additional taxpayers from being hit by the AMT as a 
result of bracket creep. I support the AMT ``patch'' so long as it is 
not used as an excuse to raise taxes elsewhere by adding offsets. The 
AMT revenues on millions of taxpayers were never intended to be 
collected.
  Despite the positive elements of this legislation, there are still 
significant issues that must be addressed. The main sticking point 
between Democrats and Republicans is whether temporary extensions of 
tax relief should be offset with permanent tax increases elsewhere. 
Following that process year-in and year-out means that permanent tax 
increases must be enacted so that taxpayers can maintain the current 
tax structure. On April 23, 2008, I, along with 40 other Republicans, 
wrote to Finance Chairman Baucus to support ``enacting a 2008 AMT patch 
and extending the various expiring tax provisions without offsetting 
tax increases.'' It would be my preference to see the tax extenders 
package passed without offsets.
  As it relates to the renewable energy tax incentives, it is difficult 
to understand why the House bill and the anticipated Baucus substitute 
would require offsets when the Senate has already spoken clearly on the 
issue. On April 10, 2008, the Senate voted 88 to 8 for an Ensign/
Cantwell amendment to the Foreclosure Prevention Act to extend the 
renewable energy tax incentives without offsets. Pennsylvania is among 
the leading producers of wind energy east of the Mississippi River. The 
thousands of Pennsylvanians employed in the alternative energy industry 
and those interested in clean, renewable sources of energy for their 
homes are looking to Congress to provide clarity and certainty on this 
issue. Without immediate action, it is widely believed that investments 
will decline significantly throughout the second half of 2008.
  On June 10, 2008, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion 
to proceed to H.R. 6049 by a vote of 50 to 44. That vote, and the vote 
which occurred today 52 to 44, demonstrate that Senate Republicans need 
to be included in the process of drafting the bill. An open amendment 
process is important for this bill to proceed. Republican amendments 
must be allowed. However, an open process is threatened by the Majority 
Leader's standard operating procedure of ``filling the tree'' and 
filing cloture to cut off further amendments and debate.
  On May 21, 2008, the White House issued a Statement of Administration 
Policy which states that the President's senior advisers would 
recommend a Presidential veto of this bill in its current form. It is 
my hope that in light of today's vote, leadership on both sides will 
work quickly to bring up this bill in a bipartisan manner that will 
allow the Senate to work its will and pass legislation that can be 
quickly signed by the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation 
Act of 2008, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clinton
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6049.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.


            Visit to the Senate by Japanese Parliamentarians

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken with the Republican leader 
about this. We have the opportunity to greet some Japanese 
parliamentarians. Senators Inouye and Stevens have worked for many 
years to develop a relationship with the Japanese parliamentarians and 
have been extremely successful. I hope Senators in the Chamber will say 
hello to our colleagues from Japan.


                Recess Subject to the Call of the Chair

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate have a short recess 
subject to the call of the Chair.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 2:51 p.m., recessed, subject 
to the call of the Chair, until 2:59 p.m., and reassembled when called 
to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Carper).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Landrieu). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.


                                 Burma

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, yesterday I came to the floor, along 
with Senators Harkin, Grassley, and others, to talk about the 
devastating floods the Midwest has experienced, and no one would know 
more than the Presiding Officer about the tragedies these types of 
natural disasters can cause for everyone in those communities and for 
the infrastructure.
  But today I am here to talk about something a little different, about 
how another country, the country of Burma, has dealt with this. I come 
to the floor today to call attention to the ongoing humanitarian crisis 
in Burma more than 6 weeks after the deadly storm that wreaked 
widespread death and destruction throughout that region.
  When Cyclone Nargis struck the Irrawaddy Delta on May 2, the 
international community's attention was captivated by the catastrophic 
loss of life and the ensuing dangerous and deplorable conditions faced 
by 2.4 million Burmese who survived the storm.
  In the days immediately following the storm, the United States, the 
U.N., and other nations and organizations applied strong pressure on 
Burma's ruling Government to allow all international aid workers to 
enter disaster areas and provide medical and humanitarian aid to 
survivors. The 16 women Senators who are united in the Congressional 
Caucus for Women's Issues on Burma sent a letter to the U.N. Secretary 
urging him to convince the Burmese Government to allow disaster relief 
assessment teams into the country

[[Page 12564]]

and lift restrictions on international humanitarian organizations. When 
the Burmese Government finally consented and pledged to allow 
international aid workers to enter the country, I believe many of us 
hoped the full-scale recovery process had begun and that we could turn 
our attention elsewhere. Sadly, this was not the case. The situation in 
Burma remains perilous, and the 2.4 million storm survivors need our 
attention now more than ever.
  I recently met with representatives from the local Burmese community 
in my State who have been personally impacted by this deadly natural 
disaster, the most deadly in their country's history. Minnesota is home 
to thousands of people from Burma, including the largest U.N. 
concentration of refugees who have been victims of religious and ethnic 
persecution under Burma's military regime. As with so many immigrant 
and refugee communities in our Nation, the members of Minnesota's 
Burmese community maintain extensive ties to their country, and the 
storm and its aftermath has been a particularly painful period. Too 
many members of this community are still waiting after 6 weeks to hear 
from grandparents and cousins and sisters and brothers. They do not 
know if they are alive.
  I met with the leaders of their community in order to listen to the 
information and reports they were receiving from friends and relatives 
caught in the middle of an ongoing disaster. The stories I heard were 
heartbreaking. Over 100,000 people are believed to have lost their 
lives during and after the storm. Tens of thousands are still missing, 
and millions are homeless and without adequate food or fresh water. 
This disaster was nearly of tsunami proportions; however, it affected 
one small country, which time and time again refused our help.
  The local Burmese with whom I met told me how difficult it is to get 
basic information and stay in contact with their family members in the 
disaster areas. One woman told me she still has not been able to locate 
her sisters in Burma. Others expressed their fears that the Burmese 
regime would never admit the need for outside help or allow the aid 
that entered the country to reach the areas it was needed the most. 
They feared that unless the international community remained vigilant 
and refused to accept the Burmese Government's conditions and control 
over humanitarian aid, the plight of the people would grow weaker while 
the regime's grip would grow stronger.
  Casualties from the Burma cyclone, as I mentioned, are nearly on the 
same scale as the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. But in that instance, 
the impacted countries accepted and even asked for international aid. 
With the military regime in Burma, they have tried to shut the world 
out. While the outpouring of donations, relief supplies, and aid 
personnel from around the world has been substantial, only a fraction 
of available international aid is reaching the storm's 2.4 million 
survivors. U.N. officials have reported that aid groups are unable to 
provide 1.1 million survivors with sufficient food, clean water, and 
shelter, while trying to prevent a second wave of deaths from 
malnutrition and disease. Of the 1.3 million people who have received 
some form of help, the U.N. found they only have had access to 
inconsistent levels of assistance. Yet the Burmese regime continues to 
raise bureaucratic obstructions to the help waiting helplessly 
offshore.
  Those international recovery workers who have been allowed to enter 
the country, and even Burma's own aid donors and relief organizations, 
are facing roadblocks in accessing the disaster regions to provide aid, 
leaving hundreds of thousands of survivors to fend for themselves. We 
have seen news reports that survivors have been forced to drink from 
dirty canals and to go for days without food. Many are turning to 
Burmese monks for help due to the Government's inaction--the same monks 
who faced a brutal military crackdown last fall for their peaceful 
prodemocracy demonstrations.
  According to aid officials, in a normal recovery effort, 6 weeks 
after a disaster--and you think about 6 weeks after Katrina in your 
home State of Louisiana, Madam President--survivors should be on the 
road to recovery and thinking about what they need to do to restart 
their lives. In Burma, 6 weeks after the storm, many survivors still 
didn't know how they were going to find food, water, or shelter on a 
daily basis.
  We are now receiving reports that the Government is forcibly closing 
aid camps and forcing homeless survivors to return to devastated 
villages. They are being told to rebuild their homes, but they haven't 
been given the assistance to do so.
  The representatives of the Burmese community I met with in Minnesota 
understand that the cyclone, and its aftermath, is more than a natural 
disaster, it is a political disaster. It is a disaster made far worse, 
far more deadly, because of the repressive military regime that 
controls the country. The Burmese people have been repressed and 
impoverished by their own Government for years. The regime's lack of 
response to the cyclone disaster just highlights how bad the human 
rights situation is. Rather than focusing on ways to help the millions 
of Burmese struggling to survive, the regime instead used the chaos of 
the storm's aftermath to quietly extend another year the detention of 
Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's democracy movement, who has 
been detained at home on and off for 12 of the last 18 years.
  What would be an appalling and inexcusable action in any other nation 
facing similar circumstances comes as little surprise to anyone who has 
been following the events in Burma over the last few years. But it 
wasn't always that way. In fact, the current political conditions in 
Burma are ironic and tragic, especially when we consider that this 
country produced one of the great statesmen of the modern world--U 
Thant. As Secretary General of the United Nations from 1961 to 1971, he 
worked so hard to promote international human rights and to bring peace 
to troubled regions of the world. In an address to the General Assembly 
commemorating the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights, U Thant said that in the age of jet plane and satellites 
circling the globe, ``the world is fast becoming a community, a 
community with common interests and common aspirations. Gone are the 
days when each nation was an island unto itself. Today, questions of 
human rights are a matter of international concern.''
  Unfortunately, the Government in Burma wants to stay an island unto 
itself and doesn't think the world should concern itself with the human 
rights of its people. The military regime's neglect and abuse of its 
own people challenges our traditional notions of national sovereignty 
and noninterference. The indifference of Burma's military regime has 
generated an international debate about humanitarian aid and the need 
for stronger international law to deal with cases where national 
governments fail or refuse to provide adequate aid.
  In recent years, the international community has come to recognize 
that a government has a fundamental responsibility to protect its own 
people and that we have a responsibility to take action with 
humanitarian intervention when a government fails in that 
responsibility.
  Two weeks ago, U.S. Navy ships loaded with aid supplies and equipment 
withdrew from Burmese waters after repeated unsuccessful attempts to 
deliver their vital cargo that could save thousands of lives. U.S. 
officials have said they will return only when Burma's leaders change 
their minds and allow them to offload their supplies in Burma's ports. 
But we cannot simply turn away from the Burmese people and allow the 
Burmese regime to continue to sacrifice thousands of lives in order to 
protect its own security. We must use all available means to compel the 
regime to allow full aid supplies and personnel to enter the disaster 
areas and to stay there until survivors are ready and able to begin 
rebuilding their lives.
  At the end of the meeting with our local Burmese, I pledged to them 
that I would take their stories to Washington and do what I can to 
bring attention to the plight of the people in

[[Page 12565]]

their country as we use our influence to bring about immediate and 
long-term constructive change. The rebuilding process in Burma will 
take years, and it is imperative that in the weeks and the months to 
come, we don't lose our focus or our commitment or our obligation to 
assist the Burmese people. So I will continue to work with my 
colleagues to draw attention to this situation and to continue to 
provide every available opportunity to call attention to it. This is 
our moral responsibility.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Unemployment Insurance

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, in the last 16 months, I have held some 
100 roundtables across my State where I invited some 65 Ohio counties 
of the 88. I invited a cross section of people, 15 to 20 people from a 
community, to sit down and talk about their hopes, dreams, and ideas 
for working together, the Federal Government with local government, 
businesses, labor organizations, schools, and others.
  I have met with a number of workers and small business owners, 
community leaders, and teachers. I heard over and over, as the 
Presiding Officer has, about the economic anxiety facing families in 
the State. I have done these roundtables from Bryan to Steubenville, 
from Ashtabula to Hamilton. Nowhere is this anxiety felt more acutely 
than among displaced workers and Ohio families struggling to make ends 
meet.
  Fundamentally flawed trade agreements and Bush economic policies have 
crippled communities in too many cases and devastated far too many 
families. Since January 2001, Ohio State has lost 200,000 manufacturing 
jobs. Since that time, the Nation has lost 3 million manufacturing 
jobs. When one loses a manufacturing job, especially if it is a plant 
shutdown in a relatively small community--this is not happening only in 
Cleveland and Dayton and Youngstown and Toledo; it is happening in 
Tiffin, Defiance, Portsmouth, and Chillicothe--if it has 300 workers, 
it means fewer police officers because of what happens to taxes. There 
aren't as many people working and businesses and individuals who are 
paying city income tax or county tax. It means teacher layoffs, police, 
and fire layoffs. It means services from the community to support 
families are not what they were prior to the plant closings.
  Clearly, a big reason is our trade policy, the NAFTA-CAFTA model, 
PNTR with China, which has caused the outsourcing of millions of jobs. 
It is bad tax policy and Bush economic policy. We obviously need to 
change direction. That is not going to happen with this President. It 
is not going to happen with the filibusters going on in the Senate 
right now. But what we can do something about immediately is to help 
those Ohio families and Louisiana families with unemployment insurance. 
It is the only economic lifeline so many families have.
  Unemployment compensation is insurance. It is called unemployment 
insurance. It is not a giveaway. It is not welfare. It is individuals 
paying in while they are working to an insurance plan. The reason it is 
called insurance is, if they lose their jobs, it is insurance against 
the loss of the job. They have earned this money. Yet an awful lot of 
people, most of my friends on the other side of the aisle as well as 
the gentleman sitting in the White House, seem to think that 
unemployment insurance is a giveaway, a welfare program, something that 
people want to game the system and don't want to work. They want to 
stay home, watch TV, and collect unemployment insurance.
  The fact is, we should reward work. People want to work. But hundreds 
of thousands of Ohioans and millions all over the country have seen 
their unemployment expire, and they are asking for an additional 13 
weeks to get them through the day. Many of these are single parents. 
Many people, if they have lost a job, lose their health care, and they 
need a little bit of help.
  Extending unemployment benefits is not only the right thing morally 
to do for these families, it is also a good economic stimulus package. 
The Presiding Officer knows that when we were earlier trying to figure 
out how we could do a stimulus package to get the economy going, the 
single best way is unemployment insurance extension, because that puts 
money right into pockets immediately. The mechanism of government is 
already in place so we extend to them their unemployment which had run 
out. We already know how to do it. It is people who will spend the 
money on daily living--on food, clothes, books for their kids, paying 
the rent, paying heating or cooling bills. That is why it is so 
important.
  I have letters I have received in the last few weeks from people in 
Ohio, individuals, most of who are unemployed. Sometimes they are 
writing for a neighbor or family member. Usually they are writing for 
themselves saying: Please extend unemployment insurance.
  It is clear that all of us are getting these letters. Members of 
Congress in the House and Senate are receiving tens of thousands of 
letters, so it is crucial. In my State, in the last 7 weeks, we have 
seen a GM plant, 2,500 workers, is going to close near Dayton. We have 
seen DHL, a company in southwest Ohio that delivers packages, talking 
about literally shutting their operation down. That is 7,000 jobs in 
Wilmington, a community of 13,000 people. Imagine what it does to them. 
There is a company in Geauga County in the northeast part of the State 
that announced layoffs of hundreds of workers. Continental Airlines is 
laying off 3,000 workers, not only in Ohio but mostly in its hubs in 
Newark, Houston, and Cleveland. That is why this is so very important.
  It is not a giveaway. It is unemployment insurance. It will be an 
effective economic stimulus to get the economy going. It is all about 
thousands of Ohioans, hundreds of thousands of people across the 
country, thousands of people in my State saying simply: I am trying to 
find a job. I am working to find a job. I haven't found a job yet, but 
I need an extension of my unemployment benefit.
  Shawna from Akron wrote to me:

       We are facing losing our house, our car, and much more. I 
     beg you to work for an extension of unemployment benefits.

  Patricia and David Troy, a small community north of Dayton, wrote:

       My husband is one of 334,000 unemployed Ohioans.

  Brent from West Chester, not far from Cincinnati, wrote:

       We need our benefits to be extended or families won't be 
     able to make it.

  Nicole from Huron, a town near Lake Erie in northern Ohio, writes in 
the most direct terms:

       Please help us.

  This is something we can do. It is not going to solve our economic 
problems, but it will help an awful lot of families. It will, in part, 
be a stimulus for the economy. There is no reason we should not do it.
  I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to support the 
extension of unemployment benefits, and I ask the President to change 
his mind and sign this legislation. It will matter for the country, for 
States, communities, and especially for families.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, over the last 8 years, American 
families have watched as the price of everything from gas to groceries 
has gone up

[[Page 12566]]

and up while the value of the dollar has gone down and down. Last 
month, they got more bad news. Employers cut jobs for the fifth 
straight month, bringing the total number of people looking for work to 
8.5 million. It was the worst 1-month jump in unemployment in 22 years. 
That means that more of our workers are losing paychecks, even as they 
need money to pay for electricity, fuel, and food. It comes on top of 
the mortgage and credit crisis in which millions of families have 
watched their primary source of wealth, their homes, plummet in value.
  Americans are looking to us for help, and we have to take action 
immediately. We have a proposal before us that would offer some relief 
by extending unemployment insurance for an extra 3 months. That would 
have two benefits. It would ensure that Americans, while they are 
looking for work, will still be able to put food on the table and fill 
up their gas tanks, and it will give our economy an immediate boost 
because that money will be spent quickly. This same measure passed the 
House overwhelmingly last week, because Members on both sides of the 
aisle realize that we have to move quickly. I am concerned that now 
Republicans are more interested in blocking our progress on anything 
than actually taking meaningful action for the American people. Instead 
of working with us, Republicans have filled endless hours on the floor 
with speeches complaining about problems but not offering any 
solutions. Instead of focusing on the concerns of working families, 
President Bush threatened to veto this bill, and then he left on a tour 
of Europe.
  The American people are hurting. They have had enough of political 
games at their expense. I truly hope the President and his Republican 
allies will join us in supporting this very important measure to extend 
unemployment insurance.


                        American Aerospace Jobs

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I turn now to another example of how 
the President's priorities are hurting working families, and that is 
the administration's decision to send 44,000 American aerospace jobs to 
Europe. Within the next couple days, the Government Accountability 
Office is going to issue a ruling on a decision regarding a defense 
contract. It is Boeing's first protest of a defense contract in three 
decades. Boeing is challenging the Air Force's choice to award a $35 
billion contract to supply the military's next generation of aerial 
refueling tankers to a European company, Airbus. We are all now 
awaiting the GAO's ruling because it was clear there were some major 
flaws in that contract.
  Ever since the Air Force announced in February that it had awarded 
the contract to Airbus, the Air Force has insisted there were no 
mistakes and the Airbus tanker cost less. Yet we have already learned 
that is not true.
  Last week, the Air Force admitted to making a critical error when it 
calculated the operating cost of the two tankers. It is now 
acknowledging that the Airbus plane actually cost tens of millions of 
dollars more.
  That isn't news that surprises us, but it is further evidence that we 
have to get more answers from the Pentagon before we, Congress, allow 
this contract to become a reality. That is why I have come to the floor 
this afternoon. While the GAO decision is important, it won't even come 
close to addressing all of the questions that have been raised about 
this contract. That is because the GAO's role in this process is very 
limited. It can examine whether the Air Force followed the letter of 
the law in the selection process, but it cannot look at anything beyond 
that. So even if it is obvious to them that the Airbus tanker costs 
more, that it is less safe, or it doesn't meet the Air Force's needs, 
the GAO can't take any action. That is our job. That is Congress's job. 
We have to get answers to the questions that have been raised about 
this deal.
  This is one of the largest contracts in our history, and it is 
incredibly important. Our tankers refuel planes and aircraft from every 
single branch of our military. As long as we control that refueling 
technology, we control our skies and our security, and that is 
extremely important to our national security. We have to make sure we 
are making the best decision for our taxpayers and for our 
servicemembers. That is Congress's responsibility.
  I am especially concerned because when you compare Boeing's 767 with 
Airbus's A-330, the 767 is clearly a better plane. Compared to the 767, 
the Airbus tanker is a lot larger, it is less efficient, and it is more 
expensive to operate. According to the Air Force itself, the A-330--the 
Airbus tanker--ranked lower than the Boeing 767 in survivability, which 
is our ability to make sure that our warfighters who are flying those 
planes are safe. The Airbus tanker ranked much lower than the Boeing 
plane in keeping our men and women who are flying them safe.
  Yet although I have asked the Air Force to explain its decision on 
this tanker numerous times over the last 3 months, I have been 
stonewalled again and again on answers. No one has explained why the 
Air Force would ask for a medium-sized plane and then go out and choose 
a much larger design which is going to cost billions of dollars more in 
just fuel and maintenance.
  No one has explained why we would buy a plane that is so big that we 
are going to have to rip out and replace hundreds of runways, ramps, 
and hangars around the globe in order to land that plane.
  No one has explained why we would not buy the safest possible 
airplane for our servicemembers.
  Perhaps most importantly, no one can explain why we are giving a 
multibillion-dollar contract to a company that has made no secret of 
its desire to dismantle our U.S. aerospace industry.
  For years, the foreign governments that own Airbus have flooded it 
with illegal subsidies in order to compete with Boeing. In fact, the A-
330 is a result of that subsidized system. The U.S. Trade 
Representative is so concerned that our Government has accused the EU 
of unfair trade practices before the World Trade Organization. It makes 
absolutely no sense to me that we would accuse Europe of illegally 
subsidizing Airbus and then turn around and award it a $35 billion 
contract of U.S. taxpayer money. It is especially troubling because the 
consequences to our national security and our economy will be huge.
  A report by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute shows that 
Boeing would create at least twice as many American jobs as Airbus. In 
other words, we stand to lose as many as 14,000 jobs right here in the 
United States by sending this contract to Airbus. With those jobs that 
we lose, we lose the knowledge and we lose the expertise that helped us 
create our global military strength and has made the United States the 
world leader in aerospace technology. Yet no one has explained why we 
would let that slip away.
  Not only am I very troubled that I haven't been able to get answers 
to these questions, but this month the Air Force gave us new reason to 
be concerned. About 2 weeks ago, the Defense Secretary forced out the 
Air Force Secretary, Michael Wynne, and its Chief of Staff, Michael 
Moseley, after finding systemic problems in the service that led him to 
have a serious lack of confidence in their leadership and in their 
oversight. Mr. Wynne and General Moseley blessed this Airbus contract. 
Clearly, we in Congress--those who represent the taxpayers of this 
country--need to look at this deal more closely.
  Congress is entrusted by the American people with the responsibility 
to look out for our taxpayers and to be a check on this administration 
or any administration. When it is clear that the administration has 
gone in the wrong direction, we--Congress--have to step in. Now is one 
of those times. We owe it to our taxpayers and to our service men and 
women to make sure we buy the right plane. This contract is too 
important.
  So I am here this afternoon on the floor of the Senate to implore my 
colleagues to stand with me and continue to demand that the Air Force 
justify this decision.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 12567]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lautenberg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________