[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16039-16040]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Brownback 
to introduce a bipartisan amendment to the Defense authorization bill 
that will save and create jobs in one of the most important sectors in 
our economy--our aerospace industry.
  Our amendment is about protecting skilled family-wage jobs--
manufacturing jobs, engineering jobs, and jobs with technical skills 
and expertise that are passed from one generation to the next. These 
are jobs that not only support families during this difficult economic 
time but that are also helping keep entire communities above water--
jobs in communities such as Kansas, Connecticut, California, and in my 
home State of Washington. They are jobs that support small businesses, 
pay mortgages, and create economic opportunity, and are jobs that right 
now are at risk because of illegal subsidies that undercut workers and 
create an uneven playing field for America's aerospace workers.
  The amendment Senator Brownback and I are offering is a commonsense, 
straightforward way to protect American aerospace jobs from unfair 
European competition, and it is an amendment that specifically targets 
a major job-creating project--the Air Force's aerial refueling tanker 
contract--as a place where we can begin to restore fairness for our 
aerospace workers. This amendment says that in awarding that tanker 
contract the Pentagon must also consider any unfair competitive 
advantage aerospace companies have. And there is no bigger unfair 
advantage in the world of international aerospace than launch aid.
  As you may know, Mr. President, launch aid is direct funding that has 
been provided to European aerospace company Airbus from the treasuries 
of European governments. It is what supports their factories and their 
workers and their airplanes. It is what allows them to roll the dice 
and lose. And it is what separates them from American aerospace 
companies such as Boeing, which bets the company on each new airplane 
line. In short, it is what allows them to stack the deck against our 
American workers.
  In July of this year, the World Trade Organization handed down a 
ruling in a case that the United States brought against the European 
Union that finally called launch aid what it is--a trade-distorting, 
job-killing, unfair advantage. In what was one of our Nation's most 
important trade cases to date, the WTO ruled very clearly that launch 
aid is illegal. It creates an uneven playing field. It has harmed 
American workers and American companies and it needs to end.
  Specifically, the WTO found that European governments have provided 
Airbus more than 15 billion Euros in launch aid, subsidizing every 
model of aircraft ever produced by Airbus in the last 40 years, 
including the model they plan to put up for our tanker competition. 
They ruled that France and Germany and Spain provided more than 1 
billion Euros in infrastructure and infrastructure-related grants 
between 1989 and 2001, as well as another 1 billion in shared transfers 
and equity infusions into Airbus. They ruled that European governments 
provided over 1 billion Euros in funding between 1986 and 2005 for 
research and development directed specifically to the development of 
Airbus aircraft. In fact, the Lexington Institute estimates that launch 
aid represents over $200 billion in today's dollars in total subsidies 
to Airbus.
  Launch aid has had very real consequences. It has created an uphill 
battle for our workers and for American aerospace as a whole. Because 
of launch aid, our workers are now not only competing against rival 
companies, they are competing against the treasuries of European 
governments. At the end of the day, that has meant lost jobs at our 
American aerospace companies and suppliers and in the communities that 
support them.
  I have been speaking out against Europe's market-distorting actions 
for many years because I know and understand that these subsidies are 
not only illegal, they are deeply unfair and anticompetitive. My home 
State of Washington is home to much of our country's aerospace 
industry, and I know our workers are the best in the world. On a level 
playing field, they can compete and win against absolutely anyone. 
Unfortunately, Airbus and the European Union have refused to allow fair 
competition. Instead, they use their aerospace industry as a 
government-funded jobs program, and they have used billions in illegal 
launch aid to fund it.
  They are going to do just about anything to keep those illegal 
subsidies in place. We saw evidence of that in recent days in news on 
Airbus's attempts to distract and hide their job-killing subsidies 
through their retaliatory WTO case against Boeing. Unfortunately for 
them, it was a smokescreen that failed. News reports and analysts have 
all shown that the two WTO decisions are worlds apart. In fact, leading 
aerospace analyst Loren Thompson wrote after the Boeing ruling that it 
``found nothing comparable to European launch aid.'' The most recent 
WTO ruling really only reinforces that American aerospace workers have 
been at a competitive disadvantage, and that needs to change.
  Let me be clear about one thing. Our objective here is not to limit 
competition; our objective is to make sure everyone can compete on a 
level playing field. Airbus has made it clear they will go to any 
lengths to hurt our country's aerospace industry. We need to make it 
clear that we will take every action to stop them because this is not 
only about the future of aerospace, right now it is about jobs that 
will help our entire economy recover.
  In fact, as we look for ways to stimulate job growth and keep 
American companies innovating and growing, we should look no further 
than this amendment. This amendment is commonsense policy. It makes 
sure the U.S. Government policy translates to Pentagon policy because 
the fact is that the U.S. Government, through our Trade Representative, 
has taken the position that Airbus subsidies are illegal and unfair. 
Yet the U.S. Department of Defense is ignoring that position as we look 
now to purchase a tanker fleet, and that does not make any sense--not 
for our country, not for our military, and certainly not for our

[[Page 16040]]

workers. The WTO made a fair decision. Airbus subsidies are illegal and 
anticompetitive. Now the DOD needs to take that ruling into account.
  When I talk to our aerospace workers back home in Washington State, I 
want to tell them we have evened the stakes. I want them to know their 
government is not looking the other way as policies continue to 
undercut their job opportunities. I want them to know that while they 
are working to secure our country by producing the best airplanes in 
the world, their government is doing everything it can to make sure 
there are fair opportunities that will keep them on the job.
  I know our workers will win a fair and open competition, and I urge 
the DOD to do the right thing to make this competition fair and open by 
considering illegal subsidies in awarding these critical contracts.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment when we 
adopt it and help us protect our American aerospace jobs as a result.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in a few hours we are going to 
be voting on whether we want to take up the Defense bill. That should 
be a no-brainer, for, after all, defense of the country is one of the 
most important things the U.S. Government can do. We are going to 
consider that. Yet we have some highly inflammatory issues that 
possibly are going to derail this bill.
  I have the privilege of sitting on both the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and the Intelligence Committee. The provisions in this bill, 
from my standpoint, are going to ensure that our service men and women 
who are putting their lives on the line for this country will have the 
training, the equipment, and the resources they need and deserve.
  Back in February, the Secretary of Defense told our Armed Services 
Committee that the Department's top priorities are ``rearming and 
strengthening the nation's commitment to care for the all-volunteer 
force, our greatest strategic asset'' and ``rebalancing America's 
defense posture by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in 
current conflicts while enhancing capabilities that may be needed in 
the future.'' That is what the Secretary of Defense said. What more can 
you say? That is what this bill does. This National Defense 
Authorization Act is going to authorize over $700 billion in 
discretionary budget authority for the programs and initiatives to 
carry out what the Secretary of Defense said.
  In order to carry this out for an all-volunteer force, here are some 
of the things the bill will do. It will improve the quality of life for 
the service members and their families, authorizing much needed 
military construction and housing projects.
  Here is another example: Ensure that all of the forces preparing to 
deploy are trained for what they are deploying for and that their 
equipment is ready so that they can succeed at combat. I remember back 
in the early days of the Iraq war, I had mamas and daddies calling me 
because members of the Florida National Guard were in Iraq and they did 
not even have the adequate body armor. Never again for those kinds of 
things. But that is another reason for us to have this bill.
  Another reason: It will authorize a 1.4-percent pay raise for our 
service members.
  To get ready for the ongoing efforts to prevail in this fight, here 
is also what the bill would do:
  Counterinsurgency. It enhances our ability to go after the bad guys 
in those counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, and it would 
improve the ability of our military to counter nontraditional threats 
such as those that now threaten us in the cyber warfare domain.
  Of course, it would support the highest priority unfunded needs that 
are identified by the Chiefs of Staff.
  It would also authorize over $110 billion in base budget authority 
for funding high-priority weapons systems. I will give an example. The 
Navy's littoral combat ship allows us to get in close to shore in 
modernized equipment and boats; also, the E2-D Advanced Hawkeye, the 
Air Force's Joint STARS Program, and the new hot, stealthy F-35 Joint 
Strike Fighter.
  This bill takes several steps to enhance our capabilities to protect 
our country against emerging threats, including terrorism and the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This is in a subject area 
of the subcommittee in Armed Services that I chair.
  We are going to have an increased capability for manufacturing and 
testing capabilities to reduce the time required to produce high-demand 
items such as body and vehicle armor, the IED jammers, Mine Resistant 
Ambush Protected Vehicles--that is the MRAP vehicles--and to modernize 
Department test capability facilities to ensure new weapons systems 
meet the requirements of that warfighter who is out there on the 
ground, facing the threat.
  In this bill is also funding for advanced technologies for weapons 
systems and further R&D to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels in our 
military machine.
  It is going to add $113 million for unfunded requirements that were 
identified by the commander of the Special Operations Command for 
ground mobility vehicles, deployable communications equipment, thermal 
and night vision goggles, special operations combat assault rifles, and 
nonlethal weapons technologies. This is the new kind of war and combat 
we are facing. It is often these highly specialized, trained units that 
are going in under stealth with highly sophisticated weapons and 
equipment to go after a very stealthy enemy who does not wear a uniform 
and who blends right into the local population.
  This bill also goes after getting us improved in the nonproliferation 
programs.
  There is so much in this bill. Yet we are facing not even getting the 
60 votes this afternoon to be able to proceed with the Nation's 
defense. Why is that? Because there is a provision in here, that was 
voted out of the Armed Services Committee, on the repeal of the 
standing policy in the military of don't ask, don't tell--a repeal of 
it once the Department of Defense completes a comprehensive review of 
the repeal. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs--once that review is done under the bill--must 
certify to Congress that they can implement the repeal while 
maintaining readiness, effectiveness, and unit cohesion. This provision 
obviously has received a great deal of attention. I believe that 
proceeding in this way--very cautiously--will allow the DOD to examine 
all the implications of repealing this policy while moving forward with 
this change.
  It is clear that this Defense bill is a key piece of the legislation 
for our military. For 48 consecutive years, the Senate has completed 
work on a Defense authorization bill. This year, a year when we have 
forces engaged in ground combat as we speak, is not the year for the 
Senate to suddenly say: No, we are not going to pass this kind of 
legislation.
  I urge the Senate this afternoon on this vote to allow us to proceed 
to the discussion and the amending of the Defense bill.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.

                          ____________________