A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the application of Airbus for launch aid.

Mr. President, in the coming weeks, we are entering an important crossroad in the future of commercial aerospace. I wish to explain this morning what is at stake for our country and for American workers.

Down one road, American workers will be left to fight for their jobs with one hand tied behind their backs. They will face unfair competition, and our economy and our future could suffer. Down the other road, our Government will make it clear that we will fight for fair trade, and our economy and our workers will win as a result. That is the crossroad we are approaching, and which path we take will be determined by two things: whether Europe decides to provide illegal subsidies to Airbus and EADS and whether the U.S. Government works aggressively to keep that from happening.

For decades, Europe has provided subsidies to prop up Airbus and its parent company EADS. Those subsidies have created an uneven playing field and have led to tens of thousands of layoffs in the United States.

In the past few years, the United States has stood up to Europe, and I have been proud to work with the Bush administration in that effort, first under U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, then under Rob Portman and now, of course, under USTR Susan Schwab. We have demanded that Europe stop the subsidies and play by the rules.

With the threat of a WTO trade case, we got the Europeans to the negotiating table, and I was hopeful that we could make progress. But over the past few months, Airbus and EADS have been in a tailspin over unsuccessful planes, production delays, and management scandals. Airbus is finally beginning to see how difficult it is to compete in the marketplace without the cushion of government subsidies. And it is floundering.

But now, rather than letting Airbus compete on its own in the marketplace, European governments seem poised once again to rescue Airbus with market-distorting subsidies.

If we want to keep a strong aerospace industry in America, we cannot let that happen. Every time the European government underwrites Airbus with subsidies, American workers get pink slips.

If we want to lead the world in commercial aerospace, our message to Europe must be strong and clear: No more illegal subsidies to prop up Airbus. Airbus must compete in the marketplace just like everyone else.

I first sounded the alarm on this important issue in March of 2004 when I spoke about my concerns here on the Senate floor. For those who have not been following the debate, I wish to provide some background.

Only two companies in the world make large passenger airplanes: the Boeing company, with its commercial air operation headquartered in Renton, WA, and Airbus, which is headquartered in Toulouse, France. Airbus is a division of the European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company, known as EADS.

The distance between Airbus and Boeing's headquarters is about as big as the disparity between how the United States and Europe view the commercial aerospace industry.

For us in America, commercial aerospace is a private industry, one that must respond to the needs of the marketplace and the demands of its shareholders. It is a difficult business, and many times manufacturers such as Boeing ``bet the company'' on a new airplane.

In Europe, on the other hand, commercial aerospace is viewed as a job-creation program. Airbus has been shielded from the dangers of the marketplace by decades of government subsidies. In fact, Europe doesn't seem to care if Airbus loses money as long as it produces jobs and those jobs come at the expense of American workers.

The history of Airbus and EADS is a history of government subsidies that have sheltered it from competition and real pressures of the marketplace. It has allowed Airbus to develop new aircraft with virtually no risk. This government assistance takes many forms, including launch subsidies, research subsidies, facilities subsidies, and supplier subsidies. These subsidies create an uneven playing field and allow Airbus to do things that normal private companies cannot afford to do. Because of those subsidies, Airbus has grown to become a market power without assuming any of the financial risk and accountability U.S. firms have to contend with every day.

As a result of this government support, Airbus has been able to erode Boeing's market share. Airbus's market share was once in the teens, but today Airbus claims to supply more than 50 percent of the industry.

But European government support of Airbus doesn't stop there. It includes everything from bribes to threats. There are reports of state airlines being promised landing rights at European airports if they buy Airbus planes, and we have seen countries threatened that they will not be let into the European Union unless they buy Airbus planes. There are reports of Airbus using deep discounts and guaranteeing to airlines that Airbus planes will hold their value.

To date, Airbus has received more than $15 billion in launch aid. But despite this massive infusion of government cash, Airbus and EADS are still hemorrhaging money and are undergoing a crisis in leadership at the highest levels. In fact, if anybody was to scan the newspapers this week, they could read about any number of problems Airbus and EADS have been confronted with. The Airbus A350 model has been widely condemned by major airline purchasers. It requires an expensive redesign, which is estimated to now cost between $9 billion and $10 billion. The A380 mega-jetliner, which Airbus spent more than $13 billion on developing, has secured only a small list of customers. Now it is plagued by delivery delays which could result in canceled orders and financial penalties for Airbus. In fact, according to recent reports, Airbus is facing the possible loss of orders worth more than $5 billion. The delays could reduce Airbus's annual earnings by $630 million between 2007 and 2010.

EADS also has a huge liability on its hands. It needs to buy out BAE Systems' share of Airbus, which is estimated to cost about $4 billion. On top of all of that, the co-chief executive of EADS, Noel Forgeard, is under investigation for insider trading.

By all accounts, Airbus is struggling. It is also losing credibility with its customers. In fact, when news broke about the A380's production delay, Singapore Airlines cast a no-confidence vote in Airbus by ordering 20 Boeing 787 Dreamliners.

One important customer who is taking notice is the U.S. Department of Defense. With Airbus's financial house of cards on the verge of collapse and no current U.S. manufacturing presence, it is becoming clear that EADS will not be able to give the U.S. Air Force the tanker of the future.

I am pleased that the Air Force has asked the right questions. In its request for information for the tanker contract, the Air Force asked potential bidders to provide them with information about launch aid and subsidies, including details about any government support, tax breaks, debt forgiveness, or loans with preferential terms they might have received. The Air Force clearly understands the need for transparency and a level playing field.

Any new subsidies to Airbus for tankers or other programs should end once and for all Airbus's campaign to access the U.S. Treasury.

To protect taxpayers and national security, the Air Force must exercise extreme caution if it continues to consider an Airbus tanker proposal.

As many of my colleagues know, my home State of Washington has a very proud and long history of aerospace leadership. On July 15, 1916, Bill Boeing started his airplane company in Seattle, WA, and since that day, Boeing and Washington State have shared the ups and downs of the commercial aerospace industry. In fact, just a few years ago, Boeing found itself struggling to keep up with Airbus, but through the sacrifice and hard work of more than 62,000 Boeing employees in Washington State and many more around the country, the company pulled itself up by its bootstraps. It recovered to once again evenly share the marketplace with Airbus, and it did so by producing a plane, the 787, which was just what the marketplace wanted.

Airbus, on the other hand, ignored the market's demand and produced a plane that few people wanted, and now they are being punished by the marketplace for their mistakes. But rather than take their lumps, they are likely to seek an illegal government bailout that would negate the hard work and sacrifice of Boeing employees.

Recently, an EADS spokesman called launch aid ``indispensable'' and said, ``Launch aid is the only available system right now'' to deal with Airbus's floundering market and design problems. How can aerospace workers in America compete with a competitor that never has to face the consequences for its failures?

Last week, President Bush met with EU leaders at a summit. Before his trip, I wrote to the President and urged him to raise the issue with European leaders. Time is running out. We are quickly approaching the Farnborough Airshow on July 17 when European Ministers are expected to decide whether to provide EADS with more launch aid.

I have supported this administration's willingness to go the distance at the World Trade Organization in its fight for fair markets. They stood up

for American aerospace workers after it became clear that negotiations with the Europeans were going nowhere. As a result, the WTO is now considering the subsidies case through its dispute settlement body.

The Senate is on record against Airbus subsidies. On April 11, 2005, the Senate unanimously passed S. Con. Res. 25. That is a resolution which called for European governments to reject launch aid for the A350 and for President Bush to take any action that he ``considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States in fair competition in the large commercial aircraft market.'' The resolution also specifically encouraged the U.S. Trade Representative to file a WTO case unless the EU eliminates launch aid for the A350 and all future models.

The production of large civilian aircraft is now a mature industry in both the United States and Europe. It is now time that market forces-- market forces, not government aid--determine the future course of this industry.

That crossroad I mentioned is coming up on us quickly. One road will leave American workers in a fight for their jobs, with the game stacked against them. The other road will give us a fair playing field where American workers can win through their hard work and American ingenuity. I hope for our country's future that we choose the right course, and it begins by sending a clear message from our government to Europe that the United States will not tolerate another round of illegal subsidies that kill American jobs. The clock is running, and the choice is ours.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 5:30 p.m. vote today, the Senate then immediately proceed to consideration of S. Con. Res. 25; provided further, the Senate then proceed to a vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution, with no intervening action or debate, and no amendments in order to the resolution or preamble.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.