National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010--Continued

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--Continued -- (Senate - July 14, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my opposition to the Levin-McCain amendment that would cut off production of the F-22 fleet and would hurt hard-working families in the aerospace industry across our country.

I know many of my colleagues have come to the floor to echo their opposition to this amendment, and I have listened to them speak very convincingly about how it would limit our continued air superiority in the skies across the globe. I have listened to them talk about how allowing our air superiority to slip would mean we could lose our ability to safeguard our Nation in the years ahead. They have also noted that prominent military officials have been clear that cutting off production of the F-22 would put our Nation's defense at high to moderate risk.

While I agree with my colleagues on all of these points, today I want to discuss on the floor, this afternoon, another negative consequence of this amendment that would harm our security, our economy, and our ability to respond quickly to threats in the future--a consequence that will hit home for so many in States such as Georgia, Connecticut, Texas, California, and Washington, where every day we are fighting rising unemployment. It is another area in which our country has had clear superiority but where today, because of actions like this amendment, we are slipping into deep trouble.

Today, I want to discuss how this amendment will erode the health and long-term needs of our Nation's industrial base. As many here in this body know, this is not the first time I have sounded the alarm about our disappearing industrial base. This effort to prematurely cut production of the F-22 is simply the latest in a series of decisions that fail to take into account the men and women who work every day to provide for their families by building the equipment that protects our country. But, as I have said all along, protecting our domestic base is not just about one company or one program or one State or one industry. This is about our Nation's economic stability. It is about our future military capability and the ability to retain skilled family-wage jobs in communities throughout our country.

Just a few months ago, we passed a long overdue bill in the Senate that reforms many of the Pentagon's procurement practices. In that bill, I worked with Chairman Levin and others to successfully add an amendment that draws the attention of the Pentagon leadership to consider the effects of their decisions on our industrial base and its ability to meet our national security objectives. I worked to include that provision because I believe it is time to start a serious conversation about the future of the men and women who produce our tanks, our boats, and our planes, the skilled workers our military depends on. It is a workforce that is disappearing before our eyes.

Providing the equipment our warfighters need is a partnership. It is a partnership that requires the Pentagon to be actively engaged with the manufacturers that supply the systems and parts that make up our aircraft and defense systems. It is a partnership that requires the Pentagon to take into account how our workforce and manufacturing capability will be affected when they cancel vital programs.

Unfortunately, today military procurement is a one-way street. In fact, just yesterday, the Aerospace Industries Association issued a major report. I have it here in my hand today. This report finds that the Pentagon has failed to consider industrial efforts when choosing strategies.

Much like my amendment to the procurement reform bill, this report urges the Pentagon to take into account the impact decisions, like the one to stop production of the F-22, take on our manufacturing base. This report--and I urge my colleagues to take a look at it if you have not seen it--notes that our manufacturing base was not taken into account in past Quadrennial Defense Reviews and that when Secretary Gates unveiled his program cuts in April, he specifically said that defense industry jobs were not a factor in his decisions.

Well, as our country faces two difficult but not unrelated challenges--safeguarding our country in a dangerous world and rebuilding our faltering economy--ignoring the needs of our industrial base should not be an option. Whether it is the scientists who are designing the next generation of military satellites or the engineers who are improving our radar systems or the machinists who assemble our warplanes, these industries and their workers are one of our greatest strategic assets. What if they were not available? What if we made budgetary and policy decisions without taking into account the future needs of our domestic workforce? Well, that is not impossible. It is not even unthinkable. It is actually happening today.

We need to be clear about the ramifications of amendments such as the one that has been offered here today because once our plants shut down and once our skilled workers have moved on to other fields and once that basic infrastructure is gone, we are not going to be able to rebuild it overnight. Building an F-22 is not something you learn in school. It takes years of on-the-job experience. Ask any one of the workers from Forth Worth to Baltimore who are responsible for the intricate radar systems or the high-tech engine parts or the complex stealth technology. We have machinists today in this country who have past experience and know-how down the ranks for 50 years. We have engineers who know our mission and who know the needs of our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines. We have a reputation for delivering for our military. It took us a long time to build this industrial base to the point where we have workers who can make fifth-generation air fighter planes. What we have left we have to work to keep because once our plants shut down, those industries are gone, and we not only lose the jobs but we lose the skills and the potential ability to provide our military with the equipment to defend our Nation and project our might worldwide.

So today, as we consider a critical tool for the future of our military across the globe, we cannot forget the needs of our industrial base, because unless we begin to address this issue now and really think about it, we are not only going to lose some of our best-paying American jobs, we are going to lose the backbone of our military might.

At a time when we are looking to create jobs and build the economy, eliminating the $12 billion in economic activity and thousands of American jobs that are tied to the F-22 production does not make sense to me. Supporting continued F-22 production will help defend against potential threats, and, of course, it will protect family-wage jobs, and, importantly, it will preserve our domestic base.

So I urge our colleagues to oppose the amendment that has been offered.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source