[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 23248-23251]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 23249]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 23250]]

  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. 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.
  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 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 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 410-8.
  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

[[Page 23251]]

to have this House--at the last stages of this competition--undertake 
an action which will further delay this contract moving forward.
  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.

                          ____________________