Travel Promotion Act of 2009--Motion to Proceed
Floor Speech
TRAVEL PROMOTION ACT OF 2009--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - June 17, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
PARIS AIR SHOW
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today to draw attention to an event that is going on across the Atlantic Ocean and how it impacts thousands of good-paying family-wage jobs right here in the United States.
As some of my colleagues know, the Paris Air Show kicked off this week. The air show showcases many impressive displays of aviation, technology, and innovation.
But there is something else that is going to be on display at this year's air show: the fruits of some 30-plus years of direct cash advances and illegal subsidies to the European aerospace company Airbus.
For more than three decades now, the European governments that created Airbus to specifically compete with the United States have aggressively funded, protected, and promoted their venture.
Since 1969, the European governments of France, Germany, Spain, and the UK have supported--the governments have supported--Airbus's commercial aircraft development with over $15 billion in launch aid. Those are high-risk loans at no- or low-interest, with repayment contingent on the commercial success of the aircraft.
According to the USTR, the amount of launch aid Airbus has received during the lifetime of that company--if it was repaid on commercial terms--is well over $100 billion.
Such massive, market-distorting subsidies to a private company are today allowing Airbus to offer incentives for airlines to buy their planes. Airbus is a mature company, with more than half of the market for large commercial aircraft. But Europe is still treating it as a company with kid gloves.
In fact, last week, Bloomberg News reported that Airbus is seeking approximately $5 billion in launch aid from the governments of France, Germany, Spain, and the UK to now fund the development of the Airbus A350. Reports indicate that the deal could be completed within the month.
If we want to keep a strong aerospace industry in America, we cannot let that happen. Every time European governments underwrite Airbus with subsidies, our American workers get pink slips.
If we want to lead the world in commercial aerospace, our message to Europe has to be strong and clear: No more illegal subsidies to prop up Airbus. And Airbus has to compete in the marketplace just like everybody else.
I am deeply troubled that Airbus is considering pursuing now additional illegal, trade-distorting subsidies that, in effect, have caused adverse effects on the American aerospace industry at the same time the European Union is being sued in the World Trade Organization for those such practices.
That is why I am writing to Ambassador John Bruton urging the EU to show it is serious about pursuing fair trade practices with the United States by ending any discussion or movement forward on those subsidies.
The message sent by the U.S. Government is very clear.
On April 11, 2005, this Senate unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 25. That resolution called for European governments to reject launch aid for the A350.
Launch aid for the A350 or any other form of preferential financing for Airbus is unacceptable. We will not tolerate another round of subsidies that kill our American jobs.
In addition to the trade-distorting subsidies now being talked about in Paris, there are other distortions showing up in the news accounts as well.
Several weeks ago, I had the opportunity here in the Senate to question Air Force Secretary Michael Donley at our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I told him about my concerns for the future of our domestic industrial base and how I believe the future capabilities of both our domestic workforce and our military must be taken into account as we work to reform our procurement process.
Secretary Donley agreed that the Pentagon has an interest in ensuring that our industrial base issues are taken into account.
That response now has some of Airbus's top executives upset and once again distorting the facts. In newspaper reports over the weekend, the chief executive of EADS--which is Airbus's parent company--Louis Gallois, claims that if Airbus is selected to build the next generation of military refueling tankers, they would create more jobs than competition for the U.S. aerospace industry.
That is pretty hard to swallow. In fact, a year ago, in June 2008, an independent, nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute study concluded that the now-overturned decision to award the tanker contract to Airbus would have actually cost the United States 14,000 jobs.
The truth is, Airbus does not even have a plant here in the United States and their well-documented plan is to build their tanker airplane in Europe and then ship sections over here to the United States to be assembled.
The Boeing tanker, however, would be built in Everett, WA, and military capabilities would be added at the company's defense plant in Wichita, KS.
Suppliers in States across America would be supported by that contract. A Boeing-made tanker is estimated to support and create twice as many American jobs as an Airbus plane.
But it is not just about jobs. This is about the future of America's domestic industrial strength. Our government depends on our highly skilled industries--our manufacturers, our engineers, our researchers--and our development and science base to keep the U.S. military stocked with the best and most advanced tools and equipment available.
So whether it is our scientists who are designing the next generation of military satellites or our engineers who are improving our radar systems or our machinists who are assembling our planes, these industries and their workers are one of America's greatest strategic assets.
We ought to ask the question: What if they were not available anymore? What if we here made budgetary and policy decisions without taking into account the future needs of our domestic workforce?
That is not impossible. It is not unthinkable. It is actually happening. And it is time to have a real dialog here about the ramifications of these decisions before we lose our capability to provide our military with the tools and equipment they need. Because once our plants shut down and our skilled workers move to other fields, and once all the infrastructure we have here is gone, it cannot be rebuilt overnight.
As a Senator from Washington State, I represent five military bases and many of our military contractors and suppliers, and, believe me, I am keenly aware of the important relationship between our military and the producers who keep them protected with their latest technological advances.
I have also seen the ramifications of the Pentagon's decisions on communities and workers and families. As many of my colleagues know, I have been sounding the alarm about a declining domestic aerospace industry for years. The American aerospace industry has taken hits from the economic climate, but it is also being undermined by unfair trade practices and these illegal subsidies of the type that are now being talked about this week in France.
This isn't just about one company or one State or one industry; this is about our Nation's economic stability, it is about our skill base, and it is about our future military capability. We have watched as our domestic base has shrunk, as competition has disappeared, and as our military has looked overseas for the products we have the capability to produce from scratch--not just assemble but produce from scratch--here at home.
Last month, I worked with some of our colleagues in the Senate to include a provision in the Defense Acquisitions Reform Act that has now been signed by the President. My provision draws the attention of the Pentagon leadership to consider the effects of their decisions on our industrial base and its ability to meet our future national security objectives. These decisions should not be made in a vacuum without regard to the long-term capabilities of our industrial base and the workers who are its backbone.
Last weekend, EADS head Louis Gallois said:
We will see at the end of the day who is creating more jobs. We are starting from scratch in Alabama. We have to create an industrial base.
Well, America has a highly skilled aerospace industrial base. It has taken a very long time to build it. We have machinists today who have past experience and know-how down the ranks for over 50 years. We have engineers who know our mission and know the needs of our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines and they have a reputation for delivering for our U.S. military.
I believe we need to move forward with a fair and transparent rebid of the tanker contract. The comments and the actions coming out of France this week have been anything but. But, again, this isn't just about one contract; this is about our Nation's economic stability, it is about our military capability, and it is about ensuring that our workers are a consideration in the decisions we are making on major defense contracts.
It took us a long time to build our industrial base, and it is built on the best America has to offer: Our innovative spirit, our dedication to this country and, most importantly, our Nation's workers. We have to work to preserve it, and we need to stand against unfair and illegal trade practices such as the ones that are being talked about at the Paris Air Show this week.
The Presiding Officer and I both know we are in the middle of a recession. We are engaged in wars abroad. These are two separate but not unrelated challenges. We have the ability in America to provide our military with the equipment they need to defend our Nation and project our might worldwide. But I fear, unless we stand for our industrial base today, we stand to lose the backbone of our military might, some of our best-paying American jobs, and our economic strength in the future.
Now is the time to take this stand and stand for our military and for our workers. It is critical to preserving America's future strength.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source