Boeing Loses

Floor Speech

BOEING LOSES -- (Senate - March 04, 2008)

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last Friday I stood on the floor of the 767 line with workers in Everett, WA, who have put their hearts and their souls into making Boeing airplanes. I was there as those workers learned that after 50 years--five decades--the Air Force no longer wants them to build its refueling tankers. I saw the dismay in their eyes when they learned their Government is going to outsource one of the largest defense contracts in history to the French company Airbus. It was devastating news for Boeing, for American workers, and for America's men and women in uniform.

Today, those workers are frustrated, and they are angry, not only because the tanker contract would mean 44,000 new American jobs in 40 States, including 9,000 in my home State of Washington; they are frustrated and angry because their Government let them down. They are frustrated and angry because their Government wants to take American tax dollars, their tax dollars, and give that money to a foreign company to build planes for our military.

I am frustrated and angry, too, because I cannot think of a worse time for a worse decision. Our economy is hurting. We are nearing a recession, if we are not already there. Families are struggling just to get by, in part because their factory jobs have been moved overseas.

This tanker contract was not just one defense contract, it was a key piece
of our national and economic security. The Boeing 767 tanker would have helped stabilize and strengthen the American aerospace industry. We are hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs to foreign countries already, so I cannot imagine why, at a time like this, our Government would decide to take 44,000 American jobs, good jobs, and give them to the Europeans instead of securing the American economy and our military while we are at war. We are creating a European economic stimulus plan at the expense of U.S. workers.

I have a lot of tough questions I hope I will get answers to soon because there seems to be some real disconnect here. For one, how can we, while we are at war across the globe, justify putting a contract that involves military security into the hands of a foreign government? Outsourcing a key piece of our American military capabilities to any foreign company is a national security risk.

Airbus and its parent company, EADS, have already given us reason to worry about how hard they will work to protect our security interests.

In 2005, EADS was caught trying to sell military helicopters to Iran despite our concern about Iran's support of terrorists in Iraq and their efforts to develop nuclear weapons. When they were confronted, EADS answered that as a European country, they were not supposed to take into account embargos from the United States. Well, that is the company to which the Air Force is now going to give a major military contract. But that is just one example. In 2006, EADS tried to sell C-295 and CN-235 transport and patrol planes to Venezuela--a circumvention of U.S. law. We prohibit foreign countries from selling military products containing U.S.-made military technology to third countries without U.S. approval. Part of the reason is because we want to keep our weapons from falling into the hands of countries such as Venezuela which have threatened U.S. security and mean us harm. We cannot trust a foreign company to keep our military's best interests in mind, especially one that has a history of trying to sell weapons and military technology to unfriendly countries.

But you know what, I think this raises a bigger question too. What happens if France or Russia--which is pushing to increase its stake in EADS, by the way--decided it wants to slow down our military capacity because it does not like our policy? Do we want another country to have that kind of control? I think that is one of the questions we need to answer, and we need to answer it now.

I also want to know why this Government would choose an unproven plane using unproven technology for a program that is so vital to our U.S. Air Force. Tankers are so important to our military that Army GEN Hugh Shelton, who was the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that the motto of the tanker and airlift forces should be ``try fighting without us.''

Boeing has 75 years of experience designing planes for our Air Force. Boeing's tanker has been a reliable part of the U.S. military fleet for so long that we have squadron pilots whose fathers and even grandfathers have flown them. Boeing could have started building these tankers immediately.

In Everett, the machinists call Airbus's tanker a ``paper airplane.'' Why? Because Airbus's tanker only exists on a sheet of paper. Now, although Airbus has taken contracts for tankers, it has not yet actually delivered a single refueling tanker, ever. Yet our Air Force just picked that plane--that ``paper airplane''--to serve one of military's most critical functions.

Finally, I do not understand why the Air Force did not take jobs into consideration when it awarded this contract. Yet that is what they said on Friday. The Air Force said simply that Airbus's tanker will be an American plane with an American flag on it. Well, you know what, you can put an American sticker on a plane and call it American, but that does not make it American-made, especially if it was made in France. It seems to me extraordinary that when the military is deciding how to spend $40 billion in American taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, it would not at least consider the effects it would have on the economy.

This is not just $40 billion either, and it is not just 44,000 jobs; it is much bigger because this affects Boeing's entire 767 line and all of the communities that depend upon it. In Everett, we know this. Boeing's health touches everything: how much people spend on groceries and clothes and whether they can buy a car or even a home. I think the Everett Herald put it in perspective Saturday when it quoted the general manager of our local mall, who said:

When Boeing sneezes, we all grab for the Kleenex.

This loss is going to be felt in our homes and our businesses and communities throughout Washington State and the entire country wherever there is a Boeing factory or a Boeing supplier.

Now, my colleagues from Alabama came on the floor last night and defended Airbus. They argued that this contract does not outsource jobs. We still do not really know how many jobs Airbus might create in the United States. That has not been decided. The only thing we know for sure is that much if not most of the initial work will be done overseas. And today, guess what. The Europeans are celebrating that. The United Kingdom's Business Secretary is already counting the jobs. Do not listen to me. Listen to what they are saying in their papers overseas over the weekend after the contract was announced.

UK's Business Secretary, John Hutton, quoted in the papers in Europe over the weekend:

The massive contract will secure a number of years of work for the UK industry benefitting not just Airbus UK, but also many other UK suppliers.

The German Government's coordinator for the aerospace industry said over the weekend:

It is a massive breakthrough for the European aerospace industry on the key American market.

They are not talking about jobs that might be created in the United States, they are talking about jobs that are being created--and lots of them--in the European Union. For decades, we have been talking about this, and now here we are.

What does France's Prime Minister say? He said of the victory over the weekend:

It testifies to the competitiveness of our industry and does honor to France and Europe.

They are not celebrating this as an American victory, they are celebrating it as a victory for France and Europe. Europe has provided subsidies for decades to prop up this company, Airbus, and EADS-Airbus is a European jobs program that has created an uneven playing field and led to tens of thousands of layoffs here in the United States. Europeans are willing to do anything to distort the market and beat out Boeing.

The tanker they will supply for the military is a result of that decades-long effort. I have for years--and my colleagues know this--been coming out here and urging the administration and Congress to fight to save America's aerospace industry from a European takeover in order to save American jobs. We have demanded that Europe stop the subsidies and play by the rules. In fact, because of EADS illegal tactics, the U.S. Government right now has a WTO case pending against Airbus, the same company to which we are now awarding a $40 billion contract. It took us 100 years to build the aerospace industry in this country. We have to defend it. Once those plants are shut down and our skilled workers move on to other fields, we cannot recreate that overnight. What did the administration turn around and do? It handed Airbus $40 billion of taxpayer money and 44,000 jobs and did ``honor to France and Europe.'' It is no wonder Boeing's workers are angry. One worker said to me: It is a slap in the face. Many others are asking: How could this happen?

I am angry too. I am looking forward to asking these questions of the administration. The hard-working Americans in my State and across the country deserve to know why this administration has given their jobs and a contract involving a major piece of our military capability to France.

I yield the floor.

Source